MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283209815 · doi:10.1016/j.dib.2022.108405

Dataset of the effect of difficulty messaging on academic cheating in middle school Chinese children

2022· article· en· W4283209815 on OpenAlexaff
Li Zhao, Junjie Peng, Liyuzhi D. Dong, Yaxin Li, Haiying Mao, Brian J. Compton, Jiacheng Ye, Guoqiang Li, Gail D. Heyman, Kang Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueData in Brief · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic integrity and plagiarism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCheatingAcademic dishonestyPsychologyTest (biology)Social psychologyLogistic regressionDevelopmental psychologyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present dataset was reported in a paper entitled “Effects of test difficulty messaging on academic cheating among middle school children” [1]. It reports the findings of an experimental study that used a naturalistic math test-taking paradigm to assess children's academic cheating behavior under different test difficulty messaging conditions. The participants were Grade 8 middle school children (N = 201). The primary dependent measures were whether each participant spontaneously decided to cheat (presence of cheating), and among participants who cheated, the specific number of test items on which they cheated (extent of cheating). We used logistic regression, ANOVA, and Pearson correlation to assess whether various predictor variables (e.g., conditions) predicted the presence of cheating or the extent of cheating. This dataset should be of interest to researchers who are interested in the development of moral behavior in children generally, and academic dishonesty in particular.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.303 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData in BriefSame topicAcademic integrity and plagiarismFrench-language works237,207