Honor and Shame: Plagiarism and Governing Student Morality
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the perceived increase in plagiarism in post-secondary institutions, there has been a simultaneous increase in research and analysis on the issue emerging from multiple fields including education, humanities, social science, business and management, sciences, and the media. The focus of this research ranges from the frequency of cases, student and faculty perception, preventative and punitive measures, and critiques of definitions and policies. In regards to the latter, many researchers have argued that plagiarism is based on antiquated notions of self, originality, and authenticity that fail to capture the important distinction between students who intend to plagiarize and those who do not. To the point, current policies on plagiarism are always embedded in a moral discourse of honor, integrity, honesty, and student codes of conduct. The problem with this approach is that student’s morality is the focus, rather than a matrix of psychological, educational, socio-economic, and cultural factors. Any attempt to respond to plagiarism as a complex and nuanced problem will require a rethinking of current policy. Using a Foucauldian framework, this article illustrates how current policy is embedded in a discourse of morality that casts students as either moral (honorable) or immoral (shameful).
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
| gpt | Research integrity Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it