Academic Cheating, Achievement Orientations, and Culture Values: A Meta-Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This preregistered meta-analysis investigated whether cultural values moderate the relations between students’ achievement orientations and their tendency to cheat. We identified 80 studies on the associations between performance/learning orientations and academic cheating in 27 countries with 40,867 participants. Performance orientation positively correlates with academic cheating ( r = .09, 95% CI = 0.04 to 0.13), and learning orientation negatively correlates with academic cheating ( r = −.16, 95% CI = −0.20 to –0.13). Univariate meta-analysis, hierarchical meta-regression, and meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM) revealed that cultural values at the country level significantly moderate the relations between achievement orientations and cheating. These findings suggested that cultural values play a significant role in influencing the relations between achievement orientations and academic cheating, and, thus, cheating prevention programs must consider culture to achieve optimal effects. Based on these findings, we propose a new model that integrates cultural values into the existing model of academic cheating decision-making.
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.
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 | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.007 | 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 it