Artificial Intelligence or Nursing Student? Revisiting Clues in the Connectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent research at a single-purpose nursing institution has suggested a means to authenticate student writing by distinguishing it from artificial intelligence (AI)-generated text through the detection of key terms. PURPOSE: The purpose was to replicate and expand the research that identified key terms present in student writing but absent from AI-generated text. METHODS: A total of 5 generative AI writing tools were fed prompts to collect 14 787 words. Using the Search function on word processing software, the frequency of the terms, because, since, so, then, thing, think , and too , was measured and compared against earlier published findings from AI and students. RESULTS: The replication study was successful for the terms since, then, thing, think, and too. CONCLUSIONS: Measuring key term frequency may be a path to authenticate student writing. While no tool can provide certainty of original authorship, the absence of key terms in a student submission may suggest AI authorship.
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 | 0.008 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".