Contract Cheating in Canada: National Policy Analysis Project Update and Results for 2021
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, regional teams assembled to collect and analyze academic integrity policies from 80 publicly-funded universities and colleges across Canada where English is the primary language of instruction (Western Canadian universities n = 24; Ontario universities n = 21; Atlantic Canadian universities n = 13; Ontario colleges n = 22). Although the entire study is not yet complete, we now have full or preliminary results to share from 9 Canadian provinces (BC, AB, SK, MB, ON, NB, NS, PE, and NL). In this session we offer the most comprehensive synthesis of the project to date. In our presentation we provide an overview of the project as a whole, show how we have conducted the study (i.e., method), and present our findings at both a regional and national level. Based on our findings, we offer evidence-based recommendations for policy reform for academic integrity in Canadian higher education, concluding with a call to action for policy makers and administrators to take a stronger stance against contract cheating. For more information on this project visit https://osf.io/n9kwt/.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".