MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409903211 · doi:10.3138/jsp-2024-1116

Understanding Academic Integrity at the University of Rijeka: How Student-Oriented Is It?

2025· article· en· W4409903211 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pegi Pavletić, Milan Petrović

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Scholarly Publishing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic integrity and plagiarism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcademic integrityStructural integrityResearch integrityData integrityMathematics educationPsychologyComputer scienceEngineering ethicsEngineeringSocial psychologyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The University of Rijeka (UNIRI) is a young Croatian university founded in 1973, belonging to the Young Universities for the Future of Europe alliance. Based on the structure of academic integrity systems in Croatia, the authors wanted to evaluate whether the student ombudspersons, student members of academic integrity bodies, non-student members of academic integrity bodies, and the UNIRI Rector are satisfied with students’ participation levels in academic integrity-related practising bodies such as Ethics Committees and the Disciplinary Committees. The authors also evaluate whether they believe that UNIRI has well-developed academic integrity practices. The methodology employed interviewing or surveying individuals holding the aforementioned roles and forming recommendations based on identified good practices, weaknesses, and opportunities. The findings show that the six students involved in such bodies are generally satisfied with their level of participation, while the university employees wished more students would become engaged in academic integrity activities.

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)0.026
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.010
Scholarly communication0.0160.012
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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