MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400482730 · doi:10.55016/ojs/cpai.v5i2.76959

From the History of Contract Cheating to the New Challenges of Artificial Intelligence: The Changing Landscape of Academic Integrity

2023· article· en· W4400482730 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brenda M. Stoesz, Brandy Usick

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Perspectives on Academic Integrity · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic integrity and plagiarism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCheatingAcademic integrityBusinessComputer scienceEngineering ethicsArtificial intelligencePsychologyEngineeringSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the second issue of the fifth volume of the Canadian Perspectives on Academic Integrity (CPAI). This issue features the third invited historical article about contract cheating and three peer-reviewed articles that highlight two challenging issues within the field of academic integrity--mental health and artificial intelligence--and a study that explores the definition of academic misconduct, which is a persistent challenge in higher education.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.535
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0020.012
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.258 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Perspectives on Academic IntegritySame topicAcademic integrity and plagiarismFrench-language works237,207