Neither abuse, nor neglect: A duty of care perspective on academic integrity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approaches and mindsets related to academic integrity are increasingly bifurcating into two polarized camps: one that is characterized by a law-and-order approach and one that prioritizes student experience. The first has been accused of being abusive or insensitive to the stress and anxiety that the approach may cause students, the latter of being neglectful of the need to maintain high standards of academic integrity. This polarization is unhelpful as it hinders thoughtful discussion as well as the formulation of balanced solutions that maintain high standards of academic integrity while also being sensitive to the psycho-emotional needs of students. To address these issues, we propose a duty-of-care perspective, which is based on the principle that as educators, we have a duty-of-care obligation to others and we must therefore act to address academic misconduct, but not without a consideration of the costs and burdens it places on others. Our duty-of-care perspective offers a framework that provides (1) a prosocial motivation and frame of reference for dealing with academic integrity, (2) a guide for developing and assessing alternative courses of action in a balanced and holistic way and, (3) a frame for messaging to stakeholders that we have a duty to act based upon care and shared responsibilities. If we are all in this together, rather than retreating into opposing camps, the duty-of-care perspective unites us around our shared responsibilities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.036 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".