MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402276152 · doi:10.33423/jlae.v21i3.7208

Artificial Intelligence’s Role in Student Plagiarism: A Graduate University’s Model of Best Practices

2024· article· en· W4402276152 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James D. Halbert, Donna DiMatteo-Gibson, Marianne Cabrera, Tricia Mazurowski, Maleka Ingram

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Leadership Accountability and Ethics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationBest practiceGraduate studentsComputer scienceSociologyPsychologyPedagogyManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This white paper discusses a model of best practices to better identify and address plagiarism issues with students using AI. It serves as an example to help younger institutions that may not have a policy in place to recognize the importance of hitting this head-on. By creating a taskforce, we were able to quickly come to a resolution for a university that has three campuses in Chicago, Online, and in Vancouver, BC. We also share best practices that will help current professors and core faculty alike in dealing with plagiarism from students using AI in their work. We end with a discussion of examples that support this effort.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.745
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Leadership Accountability and EthicsSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207