MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400482806 · doi:10.55016/ojs/cpai.v6i1.76880

The Influence of Locus of Control on Plagiarism Prevention by College Teachers

2023· article· en· W4400482806 on OpenAlexaffabout
Caroline Kirouac, Catherine E. Déri

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Perspectives on Academic Integrity · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSchool Leadership and Teacher Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLocus of controlPsychologyControl (management)Mathematics educationMedical educationComputer scienceSocial psychologyMedicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Academic integrity misconduct plagues higher education institutions, causing faculty to experience discouragement toward plagiarism prevention and detection (Doró, 2014; Thomas, 2017). While some faculty recognize a lack of knowledge about what constitutes plagiarism (Doró, 2014; Jeffrey & Dias, 2019), others cite the lack of communication of institutional policies in place (Thomas, 2017). Yet, research shows that an individual's perception of a situation has a significant impact on their motivation and behaviors (Bandura, 2019; Weiner, 2001). From this perspective, if personal perception influences the spheres of someone’s work (Montgomery et al., 2010), it is pertinent to question the role played by his or her locus of control. This theoretical concept refers to a person’s beliefs of their control over life events and their outcomes, which could play in the prevention of plagiarism by College Teachers. During our presentation, we will expose the results of a content analysis based on 17 semi-structured interviews with College Teachers in the Canadian Province of Quebec. We will cover the perception of participants regarding their internal and external locus of control toward plagiarism situations occurring in their classrooms. Then, we will discuss how the COVID-19 pandemic, among other things, influenced the locus of control of participants. In addition to supplementing the knowledge around the concept of academic integrity, this presentation will provide avenues of exploration to better equip post-secondary educators to teach 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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaResearch integrity
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptResearch integrity
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalmedium
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.512
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Study designObservational
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 topicSchool Leadership and Teacher PerformanceCategoryResearch integrityFrench-language works237,207