It's Not Robotic: Barriers to Navigating Academic Integrity & the Role of Emotions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In December, 2022, Conestoga College’s Academic Integrity Office launched an all-faculty survey on Academic Integrity. It was sent to just under 2,500 full-time and part-time faculty, and we received 989 faculty responses, or a 40% response rate. Focus Groups were also conducted to enrich our findings with qualitative data. Generally, this survey is being conducted to better understand how faculty interact with the institution’s academic integrity policies and procedures and to identify faculty interpretation, and possible improvements to supports and resources. In particular, we are keen to ascertain data on two important, yet neglected, questions: What are the barriers faculty experience when navigating academic integrity violations and do these vary depending on faculty type (Full-Time vs. Part-Time). How do discrete emotions impact faculty when navigating academic integrity violations, and do emotions impact penalty decisions? It her chapter titled, “Impediments to Reporting Contract Cheating: Exploring the Role of Emotions” in A Research Agenda for Academic Integrity (Ed. T. Bretag, 2020), Felicity Prentice states, “if emotional responses by academic staff to breaches of academic integrity affect judgement and decision-making, […] it is timely to address this as a potentially significant avenue for research” (p. 70). Potentially significant avenue for research, indeed. Overall, participants will glean an understanding of the barriers faculty face as well as how emotions may influence the process of navigating 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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.030 |
| 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".