MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400482662 · doi:10.55016/ojs/cpai.v3i2.71473

International Day of Action (IDoA) Against Contract Cheating 2020—Update from the chair of the IDoA planning committee

2020· article· en· W4400482662 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jennie Miron

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Perspectives on Academic Integrity · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicPharmaceutical Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsHumber Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAction (physics)CheatingBusinessPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The International Day of Action (IDoA) Against Contract Cheating occurred October 21st 2020 and coincided with the Carnegie Council’s Global Ethics Day. This year over 250 organizations registered for the event from around the world. While speaking up and out against contract cheating remained a main theme for the day, there was also a keen interest to inspire and promote international connections. Active student involvement and an ambitious 20 hours of live feed were just two of the accomplishments for the day. Canadian voices were also present leading up to and during the day.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Perspectives on Academic IntegritySame topicPharmaceutical Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207