MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400482629 · doi:10.55016/ojs/cpai.v1i1.52759

Academic Advisors as Valuable Partners for Supporting Academic Integrity

2018· article· en· W4400482629 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Perspectives on Academic Integrity · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic integrity and plagiarism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcademic integrityResearch integrityBusinessPsychologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Academic Integrity is a fundamental value in higher education. Due to the increased ease of access to all types of information through social media and the internet, the lines have become blurred on what is can be “borrowed” and used. Recent proliferation of contract cheating has only reinforced that integrity cannot be just the responsibility of the Dean’s Office or the Academic Integrity offices. Advisors and learning strategists who see students regularly, can ubiquitously play a valuable role in integrating academic honesty into their conversations and workshops. This can be achieved in collaborations with campus partners on campus wide programming, starting early with integrating the conversation about honesty in academic orientations for new students and parents, and when having difficult conversations about study success and academic decision-making.

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 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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.622
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0090.039
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.348 · 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