The Group Nature of Academic Dishonesty & Diffusion of Responsibility in Online Student Chat Groups
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
Opportunities for academic dishonesty have changed since the COVID-19 pandemic, as courses moved to virtual formats and online chat groups became an essential means of communication. Prior explanations of academic dishonesty tend to overlook the fact that it is often committed in groups, discounting the role that group based mechanisms play in facilitating this form of deviance. The current study integrates group dynamics into an explanation of academic dishonesty in online student chat groups with a specific consideration of assessing group size and the role of diffusion of responsibility. Using hypothetical vignettes administered to a sample of university students, findings suggest that the involvement of others contributes to an individual’s willingness to participate in academic dishonesty; however, the size of the group is not related to the decision to engage and does not diffuse responsibility for participation. In total, the results affirm the importance of considering the group context but raise additional questions regarding why groups serve as an important inducement to engage in academic dishonesty.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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