MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214940852 · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-83255-1_7

Understanding Provincial and Territorial Academic Integrity Policies for Elementary and Secondary Education in Canada

2022· book-chapter· en· W4214940852 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 institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsAcademic integrityMisconductCheatingFormative assessmentScientific misconductPolitical sciencePublic relationsHigher educationPedagogyPsychologySocial psychologyMedicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Research on academic integrity and misconduct in higher education is not difficult to locate, as work in this area has increased dramatically over the past several decades. Overall, findings reveal that cheating is a serious problem plaguing higher education with many institutions documenting various approaches to address the relevant issues. A careful look at this literature, however, exposes significant gaps in our understanding of academic integrity and misconduct in Canadian elementary and secondary (or K-12) education, which is problematic as behaviours practiced in these settings during the formative years may influence behaviours in later life stages. Furthermore, school policies, which reinforce expectations for students and teachers in the workplace are of particular importance as K-12 teachers arguably impact students’ approaches to academic integrity. This chapter focuses on key questions related to K-12 education in Canada: Do provincial and territorial ministries of education address academic integrity through policy for K-12 education? If these policies exist, what evidence demonstrates their influence on the implementation of academic integrity education at the school level? To begin to examine these questions, I conducted an environmental scan of Canadian ministries of education websites to identify academic integrity and misconduct policies. I found that only a few education ministries outline student expectations for academic integrity and consequences for misconduct or describe teacher responsibilities for providing academic integrity education and responding to academic misconduct (i.e., Newfoundland and Labrador, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan). To conclude this chapter, I discuss the implications of the presence or absence of effective academic integrity and misconduct policies for K-12 education in Canada and beyond, the impact on higher education and advanced training, as well as avenues for future research in the field.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.773
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
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 integrity0.0020.017
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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.266 · 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