Supporting Academic Integrity in the Writing Centre: Perspectives of Student Consultants
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 Writing centres are often described as safe spaces where students can explore their ideas and concerns, including questions about how to use and cite sources without plagiarizing. In many Canadian writing centres, these issues are addressed by student consultants who provide effective and influential peer-to-peer support in individual consultations. Little research, however, has directly examined the perspectives of student consultants in providing academic integrity support. This chapter provides a synthesis of what literature currently exists on the role of student consultants in supporting academic integrity before describing a case study with student writing consultants at the University of Guelph. Using data gathered through a survey, this chapter examines the experience and perceptions of student consultants in providing academic integrity support. The findings suggest that academic integrity conversations often arise indirectly, through conversations about referencing or paraphrasing. Student writing consultants consistently position themselves as intermediaries, helping protect students from academic misconduct by using a range of directive and non-directive strategies.
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 | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.040 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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