MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3210677772 · doi:10.11575/cpai.v4i1.69770

Exploring Rogeting: Implications for Academic Integrity

2020· article· en· W3210677772 on OpenAlexaff
Azimeh Takrimi, Sarah Elaine Eaton

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Calgary · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic integrity and plagiarism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynonym (taxonomy)Academic integritySign (mathematics)Computer scienceLinguisticsPsychologyAcademic writingMathematics educationSocial psychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Poor paraphrasing can be a sign of underdeveloped writing skills that can lead to plagiarism. One example of poor paraphrasing is Rogeting, which is the substitution of words with their synonyms using Roget’s thesaurus or other digital synonym providers. In this position paper, we discuss Rogeting as a form of poor paraphrasing that may lead to academic integrity breaches, such as plagiarism. We discuss methods of identifying Rogeted text, concluding with practical recommendations for educators about how to better support student writers so they can avoid Rogeting in favour of developing their writing skills.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.174
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.131 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of CalgarySame topicAcademic integrity and plagiarismFrench-language works237,207