MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317706999 · doi:10.21432/cjlt28388

The Academic Integrity Technological Arms Race and its Impact on Learning, Teaching, and Assessment

2023· article· en· W4317706999 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sarah Elaine Eaton

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Learning and Technology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic integrity and plagiarism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCheatingAcademic integrityArms raceMisconductSilver bulletRace (biology)Mathematics educationAcademic achievementPsychologyHigher educationEngineering ethicsPedagogySociologyPolitical scienceEngineeringSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay discusses the technological arms race that has developed in response to academic cheating. The author highlights three technological advances that impact academic integrity, from oldest to newest: a) text-matching software, b) online exam proctoring software, and c) artificial intelligence and Large Language Models (LLMs). This essay argues that there is no “silver bullet” to preventing or investigating academic misconduct and that our ethical obligations for learning, teaching, and assessment must include a human focus to promote student success.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.153
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.153
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0210.096
Scholarly communication0.0240.020
Open science0.0020.020
Research integrity0.0110.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Learning and TechnologySame topicAcademic integrity and plagiarismFrench-language works237,207