Preserving and Promoting Academic Integrity in a Changing Post-secondary Landscape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rapid and necessary changes to the delivery of education in the post-secondary setting during CoVID challenged our traditional ways of thinking, being, and doing within higher education. Responsibilities to ensure quality educational offerings included the need to ensure the integrity of our efforts. Preserving and promoting academic integrity during these uncertain times were challenging and required a focused, thoughtful, and deliberate shared approach. One faculty within a large urban Canadian post-secondary setting set out to strategically plan efforts that would support and promote integrity within their faculty of health sciences and wellness. A framework created by one of the authors served to anchor the discussions and planning. Lessons from this work are important to understand and share and could offer other higher educational organizations suggestions for similar work.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.077 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".