MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400482694 · doi:10.55016/ojs/cpai.v3i1.69836

Building a Regional Academic Integrity Network: Profiling the Growth and Action of the Academic Integrity Council of Ontario

2020· article· en· W4400482694 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Perspectives on Academic Integrity · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityHumber PolytechnicUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcademic integrityProfiling (computer programming)Research integrityPolitical scienceData integrityEngineering ethicsComputer securityComputer scienceEngineeringPublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 2008, the Academic Integrity Council of Ontario (AICO) has provided a forum for academic integrity practitioners and representatives from post-secondary institutions in Ontario to share information, and to facilitate the establishment and promotion of academic integrity best practices. This article is a summary of a presentation given at the Canadian Symposium on Academic Integrity, which was organized and held at the University of Calgary in April 2019. The creation, operation and role of the Council, and how it serves to connect post-secondary institutions in Ontario on academic integrity-related matters is described. This will include the benefits that such an association brings between institutions, and some of the accomplishments to date, like the establishment and ongoing work of a contract cheating sub-committee. The most recent achievement of mobilizing academic integrity practitioners at a national level is also described.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
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 score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.023
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 head0.187
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.190 · 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