MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214834164 · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1_31

Conclusions and Future Directions for Academic Integrity in Canada

2022· book-chapter· en· W4214834164 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sarah Elaine Eaton, Julia Hughes

Bibliographic record

VenueEthics and integrity in educational contexts · 2022
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic integrity and plagiarism
Canadian institutionsYorkville UniversityUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsWork (physics)Academic integrityEngineering ethicsKey (lock)Research integrityPolitical scienceSociologyComputer scienceEngineeringComputer securityMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the conclusion to this edited volume, we highlight key themes from the book, making reference to the particular chapters that address them. We discuss the symbolic importance of the work by situating previous work and celebrating milestones related to academic integrity in Canada. We acknowledge the limitations of the book and offer recommendations for future directions for research, practice, and policy.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0030.031
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.305 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthics and integrity in educational contextsSame topicAcademic integrity and plagiarismFrench-language works237,207