Digital Plagiarism in Second Language Writing: Re-Thinking Relationality in Internet-Mediated Writing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the complexity of digitally-mediated source-based second language writing, more specifically, complicating the presumed causality between technology and student plagiarism. Building on, and extending the existing scholarship, this discussion draws on the Deleuzian concepts of becoming, assemblage, and affect to re-think the relationality and transformations that occur when internet technology and plagiarism meet in the process of second language writers composing a major source-based research paper. Methodologically, this paper draws on interview data collected over the course of eight-weeks documenting the experiences and challenges faced by a student writer composing a term paper as part of an EAP course requirement. Rhizoanalysis is deployed to map connections between the multiple elements operating with the student writer’s assemblage and highlighting the how all elements -plagiarism, technology, literacy skills, linguistic proficiency and academic pressure- work in tandem to shape the final product, a paper submitted to evaluation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".