MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400482818 · doi:10.55016/ojs/cpai.v4i1.72913

Building Collaborative Networks to Support Academic Integrity

2021· article· en· W4400482818 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah Elaine Eaton

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Perspectives on Academic Integrity · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic integrity and plagiarism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcademic integrityResearch integrityComputer scienceData integrityEngineering ethicsComputer securityEngineeringLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Academic integrity work can be time-consuming and invisible, but you are not alone. Learn how a systems approach and formal and informal networks provide academic integrity experts and advocates with support to learn with and from one another.By the end of this session engaged participants will:• Understand how the academic integrity community is developing, both in Canada and internationally.• Find out how you can get support and get involved.• Reflect on your how your experience, expertise, and wisdom can help 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.113
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.113
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0350.012
Scholarly communication0.0210.027
Open science0.0060.043
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.012

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Perspectives on Academic IntegritySame topicAcademic integrity and plagiarismFrench-language works237,207