Building a Culture of Restorative Practice and Restorative Responses to Academic Misconduct
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
Abstract The Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ Article 26 on education and more recently UNESCO’s “World Declaration on Higher Education for the Twenty-First Century: Mission and Action” have called for civic and ethical education alongside academic education in postsecondary settings. Many post-secondary institutions have made fostering civic responsibility, engaged citizenship, and ethical decision making in students a strategic priority. What often remains ambiguous is how these priorities translate into action. A growing body of scholarly literature and research establishes the role Restorative Practice (RP) can play in pursuing these strategic priorities surrounding moral development, emotional intelligence, and engaged citizenship. Specifically, RP has been shown to prevent conflict and misconduct, while empowering marginalized individuals. Restorative practices demonstrate fairness; and foster empathy, compassion and accountability; through experiential learning opportunities. In light of these developments, MacEwan University, in Alberta, Canada, has been actively building a restorative culture. One aspect of this endeavour was the revision of its Academic Integrity Policy and Academic Misconduct Procedures to include the possibility of alternative resolutions to academic misconduct, based on restorative practices and principles. In our chapter, we will (a) provide a brief introduction to restorative practices that makes explicit its connection to universities’ civic education mandate, integrity, and specifically, academic integrity; (b) describe the restorative practices model that is being established at MacEwan University; (c) discuss in detail the application of restorative practices to academic misconduct cases, including training of facilitators, as well as successes and challenges experienced in the first year since it became available; and, finally, (d) share feedback regarding its effectiveness received from students, staff, and faculty who participated in restorative resolutions.
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.
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 | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| 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