Evolving intersections: AI, disability, and academic integrity in higher education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this article, we investigate the critical intersections of AI, academic integrity, and disability in the context of a large undergraduate course. Our aim was to adapt the course to respond to generative AI (GenAI) to avoid entrenching barriers for students, and instead teach them how to use GenAI tools in ways that deepen their learning and uphold academic honesty. Grounded in disability justice and access pedagogies, we outline five design goals centered on guidelines for AI usage, education on responsible AI use, revised assessments, support for teaching assistants (TAs), and accessible materials. These activities are detailed in our methodology. In our findings, we provide a critical reflection of the course adaptation, taking up issues such as varying levels of familiarity with GenAI, students’ capacity to engage with course changes, resistance to GenAI, instructors’ relational shifts to AI, and feelings of demoralization among the teaching team. We conclude by offering practical recommendations for educators, calling for learning communities to view this disruption as an invitation to listen to disabled students.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".