MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214843768 · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1_26

Promotion of Academic Integrity Through a Marketing Lens for Canadian Post-secondary Institutions

2022· book-chapter· en· W4214843768 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEthics and integrity in educational contexts · 2022
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic integrity and plagiarism
Canadian institutionsNorQuest CollegeNorthern Alberta Institute of Technology
FundersUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsMisconductAcademic integrityPromotion (chess)Public relationsPolitical sciencePsychologyEngineering ethicsEngineeringSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Although the study of academic integrity has addressed numerous perspectives on how to encourage, teach, and manage student behaviour, little has appeared on how to promote it beyond an educational or cultural lens. Though emphasis in the classroom through teaching is important to an overall understanding of academic integrity, the promotion—specifically through marketing tactics—may offer an entirely new and applicable approach to communication between academic institutions and students. Specific suggestions include gathering data on academic misconduct on a consistent basis, using data for institutional analysis of trends in misconduct so that a tailored approach to addressing specific challenges may be planned, and engaging students through relevant mediums and methods familiar to them.

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 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-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 score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0040.027
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.252 · 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