MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400482697 · doi:10.55016/ojs/cpai.v4i2.74172

Practice makes perfect (or close enough): Teaching paraphrasing in an undergraduate lab

2021· article· en· W4400482697 on OpenAlexaff
Tyler J. Donner

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Perspectives on Academic Integrity · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Communication and Language
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationComputer sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During my time as a lab coordinator for labs of five different undergraduate courses, I have tried many different strategies to reduce incidents of plagiarism in student work. Following a large number of cases (> 50) in the first semester of online lab instruction, I dedicated an entire week of lab activities to teaching and discussing plagiarism, paraphrasing, and citation. In three lab courses at different levels of the undergraduate program, I saw a major reduction in the number of cases of plagiarism detected. In this session, I will share the activity, facilitate discussion about activities that others have implemented in their courses, and discuss how to adapt this activity to other subject areas.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.310 · 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.

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Perspectives on Academic IntegritySame topicDigital Communication and LanguageFrench-language works237,207