It Takes a Village
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Members of the Alberta Council on Academic Integrity (ACAI) Contract Cheating Working Group will discuss how the collective, multi-institutional nature of their work has helped to provide practical interventions for contract cheating (Clarke & Lancaster, 2006), addressing in particular this mode of misconduct's multilateral and predatory nature. Student academic misconduct in post-secondary education and research has predominantly been understood to be perpetrated by individuals undertaking unilateral action (Eaton et al., 2019). We can observe this, for example, in how motives for academic misconduct tend to be studied in psychological, sociological, or criminological terms (e.g. Rundle et al., 2019) while the ‘supply side’ (Medway et al., 2018) and structured nature (Grue et al., 2021) of contract cheating requires more exploration. Contract cheating undermines the expectation of unilateral action by virtue of its multilateral (i.e. contractual) nature, involving networks of suppliers and consumers, thereby complicating the relationship between the perpetrator and the act of misconduct and frustrating efforts to make meaningful interventions. Addressing contract cheating takes a village. Through the lens of diversified roles and from the perspectives of multiple post-secondary institutions, panel members will discuss how to engage contract cheating collectively, provide specific and concrete projects they have collaboratively undertaken to address contract cheating issues – including videos and other digital resources – and discuss recent, instructive contract cheating cases. Participants will have access to situated insights, experiences, and resources to take away and use as-is or adapt to their own needs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
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".