Academic Integrity and Student Mental Well-Being: A Rapid Review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite concerns arising from academic integrity practitioners, researchers, and stakeholders about the relationship between academic integrity (or violations of academic integrity) and student mental well-being (or distress), there is a lack of literature synthesizing available evidence. Particularly, it is unclear about when student mental well-being may be of concern during procedures that concern breaches of academic integrity. Our rapid review identified and analysed scholarly sources (n = 46) to understand the relationship between academic integrity and mental well-being among postsecondary students. Five themes emerged: a) negativity bias; b) inconsistency of definitions; c) paradigmatic tensions; d) focus on external stressors; and e) focus on mental health prior to a critical incident. We propose several calls to action and implications for practice. There is a need to better understand the impact of an alleged or actual academic integrity violation on students’ mental well-being. Practitioners should integrate supports for students’ mental well-being in processes and procedures that uphold academic integrity.
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 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 | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.077 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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 it