Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of academic integrity in post-secondary institutions has many faces. It can be considered as a lack of student ethics to be dealt with by policy when the time comes. As something that instructors are expected to unilaterally maintain within their own classrooms. As an institutional norm, or as an impossible utopia. Without a national quality assurance body to inform their efforts, Canadian colleges and universities can look to England and Australia for guidance on academic integrity. The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) and Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) guide both of these countries respectively, while providing a wealth of information to those living and working elsewhere, including Canada. In 2020, QAA recommended that institutions designate the coordination of academic integrity to new or existing positions within post-secondary institutions. There remains, however, “limited opportunities for formalized training for academic integrity” (Vogt & Eaton, 2022, p.24). As such, Canadians working in post-secondary academic integrity come from diverse areas and disciplines, including academic support units, libraries, student advocacy, test centres, and many others. Some work is done off the side of desks, while some institutions have academic integrity offices with specialized staff. In this moderated panel session, academic integrity practitioners and professionals from various Canadian institutions will reflect on their work and the future of academic integrity in Canadian colleges and universities, deepening current understandings and providing a vision for others.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".