Reflections on academic integrity and academic dishonesty: How did we get here, and how do we get out?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, I present a reflection based on my professional experience as a teacher and supervisor of national Grade 12 examination required as the first step for admission into post-secondary institutions in Nigeria, as well as experience as a doctoral student and graduate research assistant supporting a research grant on academic integrity in a Canadian University. I highlighted the natural reaction of the society when one is perceived to have engaged in a dishonest act citing a notable example from the world’s largest democracy, the US. I also highlighted the definition of academic integrity and forms of academic dishonesty practices that resonates with me, and made recommendations on how to address what has become a thorn in the flesh of the academic world.
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 | 0.031 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.079 | 0.091 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.059 |
| 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".