MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6912679433 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.6626227

Unintentional Plagiarism

2022· other· en· W6912679433 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccidentalDigital literacyRelation (database)LiteracyInformation literacyResource (disambiguation)Video recording

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This video was produced for an information literacy course at University of Ottawa’s School of Information Studies (ÉSIS) and is shared as an open educational resource to be (re)used to teach viewers about Unintentional Plagiarism. Unintentional plagiarism refers to acts of plagiarism committed unknowingly, due to a lack of awareness rather than malicious intent. The video provides tips for students to avoid plagiarism in the academic work. This video and its contents were produced and recorded using Microsoft PowerPoint. This video was created using inspiration from the following sources: Evering, L. C. &amp; Moorman G. (2012, Sept.). Rethinking plagiarism in the digital age. <em>Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 56</em>(1), 35-44. https://doi:10.1002/JAAL.00100 Lin, Y., &amp; Clark, K. D. (2021). Speech assignments and plagiarism in first year public speaking classes: an investigation of students’ moral attributes in relation to their behavioral intention. <em>Communication Quarterly, 69</em>(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2020.1864429 Zafron, M. L. (2012). Good intentions: providing students with skills to avoid accidental plagiarism. <em>Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 31</em>(2), 225–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2012.670605

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 armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaResearch integrity
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptResearch integrity
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablemedium
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.407
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.8970.490

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)CategoryResearch integrityFrench-language works237,207