MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409873165 · doi:10.3138/jsp-2024-1114

Promoting Academic Integrity through a ‘Pedagogy of Inquiry’

2025· article· en· W4409873165 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Carolin Kreber

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Scholarly Publishing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic integrity and plagiarism
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcademic integrityPedagogySociologyMathematics educationPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The author proposes locating the cultivation of academic integrity squarely within the undergraduate curriculum through an institutional pedagogy of inquiry. Connections are drawn between inquiry-based learning, the notion of a virtue-based practice, and the German educational ideal of Bildung. It is suggested that through immersion in inquiry-based learning, personally rewarding educational gains come into reach for students as they observe and develop the virtues guiding the practice of inquiry. In a context in which students value how they are enriched and changed through their learning experiences and come to adopt the virtues shared by the community of inquiry, dishonest behaviour is less likely as it would be counterproductive to the educational experience they value. Furthermore, when students’ scholarly inquiries are connected to the needs and challenges of the world, such pursuits may cultivate integrity in the more expansive sense of students recognising and enacting their responsibility towards their social and ecological surroundings.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.029
Scholarly communication0.0120.010
Open science0.0020.014
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.320 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Scholarly PublishingSame topicAcademic integrity and plagiarismFrench-language works237,207