Understanding PSE students’ reactions to the postplagiarism concept: a quantitative analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines postsecondary education (PSE) students’ perspectives on postplagiarism—a framework that reconceptualizes academic integrity in response to generative artificial intelligence (GenAI). Through a quantitative survey of 581 PSE students across five English-speaking countries, the research investigated student responses to the six tenets of postplagiarism articulated by Eaton (Int J Educ Integr 19:23, 2023a). The findings reveal a complex pattern of acceptance and resistance: while students broadly embrace the integration of GenAI in academic work, with 93.1% acknowledging the normalization of hybrid human–AI writing, significant concerns persist. Notable resistance emerged regarding the distinction between human and AI-generated content (65.92%), the potential impact of AI on human creativity (60.76%), and the retention of human agency in writing (32.7%). The study also validates a novel instrument for measuring postplagiarism perspectives, achieving acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.718) while identifying areas for refinement. These insights suggest that educational institutions must develop nuanced policies that address student concerns while facilitating ethical AI integration, particularly in areas of attribution, creative expression, and academic agency. The findings contribute to our understanding of how academic integrity frameworks can evolve to remain relevant in an AI-integrated educational landscape.
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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Research integrity Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Research integrity Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".