{ "model": { "rank": 2698, "code": "thing-q164666", "model_id": "vr.tr.plagiarism", "name": "plagiarism", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to record and assess suspected plagiarism by connecting reused contributions, their presentation, applicable attribution expectations, supporting evidence and proportionate next actions.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Activities and processes", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "ACT", "domain": "ACT.ACT", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q164666/", "tier": 2, "score": 99, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [ "scholarly plagiarism", "mockbuster", "joke theft", "AIgiarism", "translation plagiarism", "self-plagiarism", "churnalism", "Wiki-plagiarism", "\"Los argentinos prefieren la pobreza\", el análisis de The Washington Post sobre la realidad social" ], "aliasCount": 9, "merged": 9, "knownIn": 99, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": "vr.tr.plagiarism", "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q164666", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q164666", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-07T11:10:07Z", "providers": [ "Codex", "Grok" ], "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "usd": 0.03873744, "turns": 2, "seconds": 142.1, "error": null }, "codex": { "seconds": 75.2, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.3\n--------\nworkdir: R:\\02_PROJECTS\\02_Meta_Models_Platforms\\Ver.cy\\current\\thing-registry-backlog\nmodel: gpt-6-astra\nprovider: openai\napproval: never\nsandbox: read-only\nreasoning effort: none\nreasoning summaries: none\nsession id: 01a07b8d-7e20-7840-9853-d47ec4c8d021\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: plagiarism\nRegistry id: vr.tr.plagiarism\nPlane / domain: ACT / ACT.ACT\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none)\n\nA V" } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q164666", "registryId": "vr.tr.plagiarism", "name": "plagiarism", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "ACT.ACT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q164666/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.plagiarism", "name": "plagiarism", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to record and assess suspected plagiarism by connecting reused contributions, their presentation, applicable attribution expectations, supporting evidence and proportionate next actions.", "definition": "Plagiarism is the unattributed appropriation of another identifiable person's words, ideas, processes, results, or work products in a setting where original authorship is legitimately expected, done so as to take credit or other benefit that is not given to the source.", "scope_statement": "This model owns a suspected or established act of presenting another source's contribution, or reusing one's own prior contribution where disclosure is required, without the acknowledgment expected in the relevant context; it preserves the distinction between an allegation and a supported determination.", "in_scope": [ "The submitted, published or otherwise presented work and the specific passages, ideas, methods, code, images or other contributions under examination.", "Candidate source contributions and evidence of borrowing, derivation or shared origin.", "Attribution, quotation, acknowledgment and prior-publication disclosures as encountered by the intended audience.", "The contextual rules and exceptions used to assess whether the presentation constitutes plagiarism.", "The allegation, assessment, response and correction history of the specific act." ], "out_of_scope": [ "Copyright ownership, licensing and infringement determinations.", "General authorship allocation and contributor-credit disputes without an alleged misrepresentation of borrowed contributions.", "Fabrication, falsification and broader research-integrity investigations.", "Contract cheating, impersonation and unauthorized assistance as independent misconduct categories.", "Operation and benchmarking of similarity-detection systems.", "Institution-wide disciplinary procedures and sanctions beyond their application to this case." ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Textual or structural similarity alone does not establish plagiarism: the model must connect an identifiable contribution to its source, its presentation and an applicable attribution expectation.", "Properly acknowledged reuse may resemble plagiarism in a similarity report while failing the test of missing or misleading acknowledgment.", "Permission to reuse and acknowledgment of origin are separate tests; satisfying one does not establish that the other is satisfied.", "Independent creation, common knowledge and material inherited from a shared source must remain alternatives until evidence distinguishes them from borrowing.", "Reuse of one's own work must be assessed against a specific disclosure or originality requirement rather than automatically treated as appropriation of another person's work." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Contribution under examination", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Wording; idea or argument; method; data selection or arrangement; code; image or design; mixed; unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Determines what must be compared and what acknowledgment could meaningfully identify the borrowed contribution." }, { "name": "Source relationship", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Links a bounded contribution in the presented work to one or more candidate antecedents, intermediaries or common sources.", "why_it_matters": "Prevents an earlier-looking match from being treated automatically as the actual source." }, { "name": "Transformation of borrowed material", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Verbatim reuse; close paraphrase; translation; rearrangement or mosaic assembly; adaptation across media; conceptual reuse; unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Makes nonverbatim forms of possible appropriation visible." }, { "name": "Acknowledgment condition", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Absent; present but ambiguous; source identified but reused extent unclear; apparently sufficient under the identified rule; disputed; unassessed", "why_it_matters": "Records whether readers can distinguish the presenter's contribution from material originating elsewhere." }, { "name": "Extent of implicated material", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Count or proportion with explicit unit, denominator and comparison method, such as words, passages, functions or figures; unknown when not defensibly measurable", "why_it_matters": "Supports an assessment of scope without equating a similarity percentage with a plagiarism determination." }, { "name": "Importance to the claimed contribution", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Incidental; supporting; central to the claimed contribution; disputed; unassessed, with a case-specific justification", "why_it_matters": "A small borrowed component may carry the work's main claim or claimed originality." }, { "name": "Applicable attribution expectation", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Links the act to an identified assignment instruction, publication policy, professional convention or other governing expectation and its applicable version.", "why_it_matters": "Makes the basis for judgment explicit and open to challenge." }, { "name": "Assessment status", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Unassessed; suspected; under review; supported under an identified rule; not supported; inconclusive; contested", "why_it_matters": "Separates detection signals, allegations and determinations." } ], "affordances": [ "Locate and compare the precise contributions alleged to have been reused.", "Trace candidate sources and test shared-source or independent-creation explanations.", "Assess acknowledgment against a recorded contextual requirement.", "Prepare an evidence-linked account that separates observations, allegations and judgments.", "Request missing source material, explanations or authorized review.", "Propose and track attribution corrections, disclosure or other remedies within the agent's authority." ] }, "sources": [ { "id": "wikipedia-plagiarism", "title": "Plagiarism. Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism", "what_it_supports": "Core definition; distinction from copyright infringement; academic, journalistic, and artistic practice; self-plagiarism and reverse plagiarism; detection and AI; Fishman's five-element test as cited there.", "url_status": "live" }, { "id": "bmj-aronson-2024", "title": "When I use a word . . . Academic fraud - plagiarism. The BMJ (Jeffrey K. Aronson)", "url": "https://www.bmj.com/content/387/bmj.q2627", "what_it_supports": "US Office of Research Integrity definition; difficulty of drawing the occurrence line; adapted typology including concealed paraphrasing, purloining, ghostwriting.", "url_status": "blocked" }, { "id": "cope-overlap-2024", "title": "Determining acceptable levels of plagiarism/duplication. COPE Council, Committee on Publication Ethics", "url": "https://publicationethics.org/guidance/cope-position/determining-acceptable-levels-plagiarismduplication", "what_it_supports": "No fixed percentage of overlap as an investigation trigger; nature, concentration, article type, and disciplinary norms decide the case.", "url_status": "blocked" }, { "id": "plos-ethics", "title": "Ethical Publishing Practice (Plagiarism). PLOS journals", "url": "https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/s/ethical-publishing-practice", "what_it_supports": "Publisher operational definition covering text, ideas, images, data, and text recycling; methods-section exception; screening via Crossref Similarity Check / iThenticate; COPE follow-up.", "url_status": "live" }, { "id": "scribbr-types", "title": "The 5 Types of Plagiarism. Scribbr", "url": "https://www.scribbr.com/plagiarism/types-of-plagiarism/", "what_it_supports": "Practice typology used in student-integrity teaching: global, verbatim, paraphrasing, patchwork, and self-plagiarism.", "url_status": "live" }, { "id": "vrbanec-mestrovic-2021", "title": "Taxonomy of academic plagiarism methods. T. Vrbanec and A. Meštrović, Zbornik Veleučilišta u Rijeci / arXiv 2105.12068", "url": "https://arxiv.org/pdf/2105.12068", "what_it_supports": "Survey of definitions and a technical taxonomy (clone, translation, copy, substitute, remix, hybrid, mashup, waste, ghost-product).", "url_status": "unverified" }, { "id": "cs-wiki-plagiat", "title": "Plagiát. Czech Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation", "url": "https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagi%C3%A1t", "what_it_supports": "ISO 5127 (ČSN ISO 5127-2003) vocabulary definition; note that Czech copyright law does not itself define plagiarism, unlike some neighbouring systems.", "url_status": "live" }, { "id": "ru-wiki-plagiat", "title": "Плагиат. Russian Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation", "url": "https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%B0%D1%82", "what_it_supports": "Authorship-appropriation as the obligatory mark of plagiarism, contrasted with copyright piracy that copies without claiming to be the author.", "url_status": "live" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "borrowed-contribution", "name": "Borrowed contribution", "description": "Identifies what is alleged to have been taken and where it appears in the presented work.", "rationale": "A plagiarism assessment needs a bounded contribution, not merely a suspicious document or aggregate match score.", "layers": [ { "id": "implicated-material", "name": "Implicated material", "description": "Locates the material and identifies the kind of contribution at issue.", "findings": [ { "id": "contribution-boundary", "name": "Contribution boundary", "description": "Record the specific expression, idea, method or artifact component whose origin or acknowledgment is disputed.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which exact passages, claims, code units, images or other components are implicated, and in which version of the work?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "contribution-boundary-q01" }, { "text": "Is the allegation about copied expression, an appropriated idea, a method or another identifiable contribution?", "kind": "definition", "id": "contribution-boundary-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "reuse-form-and-weight", "name": "Reuse form and weight", "description": "Characterizes transformation, extent and importance without treating them as automatic verdicts.", "findings": [ { "id": "reuse-profile", "name": "Reuse profile", "description": "Record how the material was transformed and how much of the work's claimed contribution depends on it.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does the comparison indicate verbatim copying, paraphrase, translation, mosaic assembly, adaptation or conceptual reuse?", "kind": "definition", "id": "reuse-profile-q01" }, { "text": "What is the extent of the implicated material, using an explicit unit and denominator where appropriate?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "reuse-profile-q02" }, { "text": "How does the implicated material support the work's central claim or claimed originality?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "reuse-profile-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "source-and-derivation", "name": "Source and derivation", "description": "Examines where the contribution originated and whether the presented work plausibly derives from it.", "rationale": "A matching work may be an intermediary, a later copy or another descendant of a common source.", "layers": [ { "id": "source-lineage", "name": "Source lineage", "description": "Distinguishes candidate originators, intermediaries and available versions.", "findings": [ { "id": "antecedent-evidence", "name": "Antecedent evidence", "description": "Record inspected source material, chronology and limits on what can be inferred about origin.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which candidate sources have been inspected, and which exact versions contain the relevant contribution?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "antecedent-evidence-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence establishes their chronology and distinguishes an originating source from an intermediary or later reproduction?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "antecedent-evidence-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "derivation-alternatives", "name": "Derivation alternatives", "description": "Tests borrowing against explanations that can produce similarity without the alleged appropriation.", "findings": [ { "id": "borrowing-versus-coincidence", "name": "Borrowing versus coincidence", "description": "Record evidence for derivation alongside plausible shared-source, conventional-form and independent-creation explanations.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which distinctive correspondences support derivation beyond generic wording or routine structure?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "borrowing-versus-coincidence-q01" }, { "text": "Could a shared source, required template, standard expression or independent development explain those correspondences?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "borrowing-versus-coincidence-q02" }, { "text": "What evidence of access or transmission exists, and what remains unknown?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "borrowing-versus-coincidence-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "presentation-and-attribution", "name": "Presentation and attribution", "description": "Examines what the audience was led to understand about the contribution's origin.", "rationale": "The source relationship must be assessed together with the acknowledgment actually available to readers.", "layers": [ { "id": "audience-facing-credit", "name": "Audience-facing credit", "description": "Records citations, quotation boundaries and other signals of borrowed material.", "findings": [ { "id": "acknowledgment-coverage", "name": "Acknowledgment coverage", "description": "Record whether acknowledgment identifies both the source and the scope of the reused contribution.", "questions": [ { "text": "What citation, quotation, caption, code notice or acknowledgment accompanies the implicated material in the examined version?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "acknowledgment-coverage-q01" }, { "text": "Can the intended audience identify where the borrowed contribution begins and ends, including any verbatim wording?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "acknowledgment-coverage-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "originality-and-disclosure", "name": "Originality and disclosure", "description": "Records explicit or contextual claims of originality and relevant prior-use disclosures.", "findings": [ { "id": "claimed-origin", "name": "Claimed origin", "description": "Identify what the presenter claimed as their own or as new, including cases involving their prior work.", "questions": [ { "text": "What explicit statement or submission context presents the implicated contribution as the presenter's own or newly produced work?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "claimed-origin-q01" }, { "text": "If the contribution comes from the presenter's prior work, what prior-use disclosure was made and what specific disclosure requirement applies?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "claimed-origin-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "contextual-assessment", "name": "Contextual assessment", "description": "Connects the evidence to the attribution expectations and decision authority governing the act.", "rationale": "The model must expose why an act meets or fails a particular plagiarism standard instead of assuming a universal threshold.", "layers": [ { "id": "governing-expectations", "name": "Governing expectations", "description": "Identifies applicable requirements and their boundaries.", "findings": [ { "id": "attribution-rule", "name": "Attribution rule", "description": "Record the rule used to evaluate the act, including relevant exceptions and treatment of intent.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which identifiable policy, instruction or convention governed attribution when and where the work was presented?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "attribution-rule-q01" }, { "text": "How does that standard treat common knowledge, routine expressions, authorized collaboration and reuse of prior work?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "attribution-rule-q02" }, { "text": "Does the standard make intent relevant to classification, consequences or both, and what evidence addresses it?", "kind": "definition", "id": "attribution-rule-q03" } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-to-determination", "name": "Evidence to determination", "description": "Separates comparison results, allegations, responses and authorized conclusions.", "findings": [ { "id": "supported-assessment", "name": "Supported assessment", "description": "Record which elements of the applicable standard are supported, disputed or unresolved.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which required elements are supported by inspected evidence, and which rely only on a detector output or an unverified allegation?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "supported-assessment-q01" }, { "text": "What explanation or counterevidence has the person concerned supplied, or is their response still unavailable?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "supported-assessment-q02" }, { "text": "Who may make the determination, and what assessment status is justified pending that decision?", "kind": "action", "id": "supported-assessment-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "correction-and-case-resolution", "name": "Correction and case resolution", "description": "Connects the identified attribution problem to possible remedies and records their effects.", "rationale": "Recognizing plagiarism must support bounded action while preserving the distinction between correcting a work and resolving a misconduct finding.", "layers": [ { "id": "remedy-selection", "name": "Remedy selection", "description": "Identifies actions that address the specific borrowed contribution and misleading presentation.", "findings": [ { "id": "attribution-repair", "name": "Attribution repair", "description": "Record proposed remedies, their justification and the authority needed to carry them out.", "questions": [ { "text": "Would corrected citation, quotation boundaries, contribution credit or prior-use disclosure address the identified presentation problem?", "kind": "action", "id": "attribution-repair-q01" }, { "text": "What further review or action is required if attribution repair cannot resolve the issue, and who is authorized to undertake it?", "kind": "action", "id": "attribution-repair-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "resolution-verification", "name": "Resolution verification", "description": "Tracks corrected versions and unresolved consequences of the original presentation.", "findings": [ { "id": "correction-versus-closure", "name": "Correction versus closure", "description": "Record what changed in the work and whether the allegation or determination remains open.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which implicated components were corrected in which version, and what inspection confirms that the correction addresses them?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "correction-versus-closure-q01" }, { "text": "Does the authorized reviewer regard the case as resolved, contested or still open despite the correction?", "kind": "action", "id": "correction-versus-closure-q02" }, { "text": "Which circulated versions or affected audiences still require an authorized correction or notice?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "correction-versus-closure-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-and-external-alignment", "name": "Evidence and external alignment", "description": "What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.", "rationale": "A model that cannot be lined up against existing standards, identifiers and practice cannot be adopted by anyone who already uses them.", "layers": [ { "id": "reported-evidence", "name": "Reported evidence", "description": "Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds", "name": "Kinds and varieties", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ "Verbatim (direct/clone) plagiarism: word-for-word copying without quotation and attribution", "Mosaic plagiarism / patchwriting: stitching phrases or sentence structures from one or more sources into ostensibly original text", "Paraphrase plagiarism: restating another's ideas while keeping their content, and often their structure, without credit", "Idea and structure plagiarism: taking concepts, arguments, or organisation without taking the wording", "Translation plagiarism: rendering a source from another language as original work", "Self-plagiarism / text recycling: reusing one's own previously submitted or published material as if it were new", "Contract cheating / ghostwriting (global or complete plagiarism): submitting an entire work produced by someone else, paid or unpaid", "Source-based plagiarism: invented, unread, secondary-as-primary, or otherwise misleading citations" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of plagiarism this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-identifiers", "name": "Identifiers and schemes", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ { "scheme": "ISO 5127 vocabulary term", "value_or_pattern": "plagiarism (as defined in ISO 5127 / ČSN ISO 5127-2003: presenting another author's intellectual work, borrowed or imitated in whole or in part, as one's own)", "note": "A documentation-vocabulary entry, not a taxonomic code; the 2003 Czech adoption is the edition cited in the source actually read. Wikidata Q-id was not confirmed in this pass and is omitted." }, { "scheme": "US Public Health Service research-misconduct category", "value_or_pattern": "plagiarism within FFP (fabrication, falsification, plagiarism), 42 CFR Part 93 as administered by the Office of Research Integrity", "note": "ORI's operational wording: appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-identifiers-q01", "text": "Which of these identifiers and schemes hold for the sense of plagiarism this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation", "name": "Standards and regulation", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ "US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Research Integrity - 42 CFR Part 93 (Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct), treating plagiarism as one of the three core research-misconduct offences", "Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) - position statements and flowcharts on suspected plagiarism in submitted and published articles, and on acceptable levels of duplication", "ISO 5127 (Information and documentation - vocabulary), as nationally adopted e.g. ČSN ISO 5127-2003, which defines the term for documentation practice", "Journal and publisher research-integrity policies that implement COPE, e.g. PLOS Ethical Publishing Practice (screening with Crossref Similarity Check / iThenticate; text-recycling rules)", "Institutional academic-integrity / honour codes and student-misconduct procedures (Stanford, Yale, Princeton and others, as summarised in the Wikipedia survey of campus definitions)", "Copyright, moral-rights, unfair-competition, fraud, and contract law, which can attach to the same facts but do not generally name 'plagiarism' as a statutory offence" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation-q01", "text": "Which of these standards and regulation hold for the sense of plagiarism this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-real-world-use", "name": "Real-world use", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ "Universities screen student coursework with text-matching services (Turnitin and similar) and then adjudicate matches through academic-misconduct panels, with sanctions from a failed assignment to expulsion", "Journals and publishers run submitted manuscripts through Crossref Similarity Check / iThenticate; confirmed plagiarism can mean rejection, correction, or retraction", "Newsrooms treat unattributed lifting as a journalistic-ethics breach; reporters are typically suspended pending investigation and may be dismissed", "Wikipedia moderation (e.g. CopyPatrol plus iThenticate) flags unattributed text and copyright problems on edits", "Research-integrity offices investigate alleged plagiarism of ideas, methods, or wording in grants, theses, and papers", "Students and researchers encounter it as a citation-and-paraphrase skill they are taught, and as a detection report they must interpret" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of plagiarism this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-measurements", "name": "Typical measurements", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ { "quantity": "Text-similarity / overlap index from matching software", "typical_range": "No accepted numeric cutoff; COPE advises against using a percentage as the investigation trigger. Nature, location, and concentration of the match matter more than the score", "unit": "percent of submitted text matching a reference corpus" }, { "quantity": "Contiguous duplicated span", "typical_range": "From isolated boilerplate phrases (often tolerated in methods) to whole paragraphs or sections (usually investigated)", "unit": "words or sentences of continuous overlap" }, { "quantity": "Number of matched source documents", "typical_range": "One source (clone/copy) versus many (mosaic/mashup); count alone does not decide the case", "unit": "count of sources" } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-measurements-q01", "text": "Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of plagiarism this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards", "name": "Failure modes and hazards", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ "A similarity percentage is treated as a finding of plagiarism, producing false accusations on methods boilerplate, common phrases, or legitimate thesis-to-paper reuse", "False negatives: paraphrase, synonym substitution, translation, idea theft, contract cheating, and much AI-generated text evade source-matching", "AI-writing detectors used as dispositive proof, despite being non-specific; contested in student-conduct hearings (e.g. Newby v. Adelphi University as reported)", "Detection corpora are stronger for high-resource languages, so work in smaller languages is both less well screened and more easily missed", "Confirmed plagiarism can retract papers, end academic appointments, fail or expel students, and destroy journalistic credibility", "If plagiarism becomes routine in assessed work, the associated qualification no longer certifies the learning it claims to" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of plagiarism this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-regional-variation", "name": "Regional variation", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ "In US and much Anglophone practice, plagiarism is primarily an institutional ethics offence, not a named crime; the same facts may still support copyright, fraud, or contract claims", "Continental European droit d'auteur / moral-rights systems can give the original author a legal remedy for unattributed use even when a US-style copyright analysis would not", "Czech copyright law (as reported) does not define plagiarism, whereas neighbouring systems such as German law are described as using the concept more directly", "Anglo-American assessment culture expects marked originality and citation; some pedagogical traditions treat close imitation as legitimate apprenticeship, which collides with imported integrity codes", "Text-matching tools and publisher workflows are built around large English and other high-resource corpora, so detection practice is uneven by language" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of plagiarism this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-neighbours", "name": "Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ { "name": "Copyright infringement", "difference": "Ask whether exclusive rights of a copyright holder were used without licence. Plagiarism is a false claim of authorship or unearned credit; it can occur in public-domain or licensed text, and infringement can occur without any authorship claim." }, { "name": "Piracy / unauthorised copying", "difference": "Piracy copies or distributes a work without permission but typically still presents it as the original author's. Plagiarism requires appropriation of authorship." }, { "name": "Proper quotation and citation", "difference": "If the borrowed words are marked as quotation (or clearly paraphrased) and the source is given, the originality-and-credit test for plagiarism is not met." }, { "name": "Common knowledge", "difference": "Material a typical member of the intended audience would already know without a source need not be cited; the test is audience knowledge, not the writer's memory." }, { "name": "Cryptomnesia", "difference": "The writer believes the material is original after unconscious recall. Academic policy may still treat the product as plagiarism; the psychological test is belief, the integrity test is missing credit." }, { "name": "Duplicate publication / text recycling of one's own work", "difference": "The source is the same author. It is dishonest about novelty, not theft of another's work; many specialists prefer 'redundant publication' or 'text recycling' to 'self-plagiarism'." }, { "name": "Authorised ghostwriting", "difference": "A speechwriter or named contributor working under an agreed disclosure or disciplinary convention is not presenting the work as the ghost's original assessed authorship; a student essay mill is." }, { "name": "Fabrication or falsification", "difference": "Those invent or alter data or results. Plagiarism takes existing work; the three are the FFP triad and can co-occur (e.g. fake citations)." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of plagiarism this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which researched definitions should govern the boundary between plagiarism, inadequate citation and disputed authorship across the intended contexts?", "Should undisclosed reuse of one's own work be classified within plagiarism or linked to a neighbouring redundant-publication or disclosure model?", "How should attribution expectations be established for ideas, methods, code, images and oral contributions when no explicit local policy exists?", "What evidence is sufficient to distinguish derivation from independent creation or common-source reuse, especially across languages and media?", "How should AI-mediated reuse and fabricated or misleading citations be represented when the underlying source relationship cannot yet be established?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 18, "questions": 33 } }, "draft": { "generator": "vr.draft.v3", "status": "draft-generated", "researched": false, "archetype": "abstract concept", "method": "Written from the archetype playbook - what this kind of thing needs beyond identity and provenance - and from the structure that recurred across 6,333 models already researched by two engines. Applied to this entry by rule. No source was read for this thing and no claim here is researched. This entry carries no facets of its own, so they were inferred from its domain - a guess about a whole domain applied to one thing.", "facetsInferred": true, "nextPass": "A researcher replaces this draft with a sourced specification. Treat every sentence below as a proposal to argue with.", "purpose": "Give an agent a durable, checkable way to recognise a plagiarism, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an AI agent to record and assess suspected plagiarism by connecting reused contributions, their presentation, applicable attribution expectations, supporting evidence and proportionate next actions.", "characteristics": { "substance": "activity", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert" }, "whatYouCanDoWithIt": [ "observed and measured" ], "distinguishingFeatures": [ "Names folded into this entry, which a task may need to split apart again: scholarly plagiarism, mockbuster, joke theft, AIgiarism, translation plagiarism, self-plagiarism, churnalism, Wiki-plagiarism, \"Los argentinos prefieren la pobreza\", el análisis de The Washington Post sobre la realidad social.", "9 finer distinctions are held as aliases rather than separate entries, because telling them apart needs a task that asks for it.", "Described in 99 Wikipedia languages, which is a measure of how widely the thing is known, not of how important it is." ], "openQuestionsForResearch": [ "Which of the bundles below does a real task actually need, and which are ceremony?", "What does this thing have that the facets do not capture at all?", "Which neighbouring kind is most often confused with a plagiarism, and on what evidence are they told apart?" ], "whatItIsMadeOf": "something that happens over time", "physicalCharacter": [ "Does nothing on its own; everything it does, something else did to it.", "These come from the domain this entry sits in rather than from the entry itself, so treat them as a first guess about the whole domain applied to one thing." ], "whatCanBeDoneWithIt": [ "observe it, measure it, record its state" ], "howItIsRecognised": [ "Nothing to see. What is recognised is an instance of it, and which instances count is exactly what is argued about." ], "relatedModels": [ { "relation": "covers", "note": "Finer kinds folded into this entry because telling them apart needs a task that asks for it. Each is a model waiting to be split out when one does.", "targets": [ "scholarly plagiarism", "mockbuster", "joke theft", "AIgiarism", "translation plagiarism", "self-plagiarism", "churnalism", "Wiki-plagiarism", "\"Los argentinos prefieren la pobreza\", el análisis de The Washington Post sobre la realidad social" ] } ], "standing": "Described in 99 Wikipedia languages, which measures how widely it is written about rather than how important or how common it is. 9 finer distinctions are held inside this entry as names rather than as separate models.", "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "identity-and-classification", "name": "Identity, naming and classification", "description": "How an agent tells one plagiarism from another, and a plagiarism from things that resemble it.", "rationale": "Recognition comes before every other claim. Without stable identity nothing else in the model can be trusted to be about the same thing twice.", "layers": [ { "id": "naming-and-identifiers", "name": "Names and identifiers", "description": "The names this thing goes by and the identifiers that survive translation and time.", "findings": [ { "id": "preferred-name-and-aliases", "name": "Preferred name, aliases and local names", "description": "Which name to use, which names mean the same thing, and which merely sound similar.", "questions": [ { "id": "preferred-name-and-aliases-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the name of a plagiarism, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "preferred-name-and-aliases-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the name of a plagiarism, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "preferred-name-and-aliases-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the name of a plagiarism is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] }, { "id": "stable-identifiers", "name": "Stable identifiers and external keys", "description": "Identifiers that keep pointing at this kind of thing across systems and languages.", "questions": [ { "id": "stable-identifiers-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes an identifier for a plagiarism, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "stable-identifiers-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about an identifier for a plagiarism, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "stable-identifiers-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once an identifier for a plagiarism is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "classification-and-granularity", "name": "Classification and granularity", "description": "Where a plagiarism sits among kinds, and how finely a task needs to cut it.", "findings": [ { "id": "kind-and-parents", "name": "Kind, parents and neighbouring kinds", "description": "The classes this thing belongs to and the ones it is next to.", "questions": [ { "id": "kind-and-parents-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the kind of a plagiarism, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "kind-and-parents-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the kind of a plagiarism, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "kind-and-parents-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the kind of a plagiarism is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] }, { "id": "distinguishing-features", "name": "Distinguishing features", "description": "What separates a plagiarism from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a plagiarism, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "distinguishing-features-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about what distinguishes a plagiarism, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "distinguishing-features-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once what distinguishes a plagiarism is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "state-and-lifecycle", "name": "State and lifecycle", "description": "The states a plagiarism passes through and the events that move it between them.", "rationale": "Most decisions about a thing depend on what state it is in now, which is a claim with a time on it, not a property.", "layers": [ { "id": "lifecycle-stages", "name": "Lifecycle stages", "description": "From coming into existence to ceasing to be one of these.", "findings": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions", "name": "Stages and transitions", "description": "The stages worth naming and what moves a plagiarism between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a plagiarism, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the lifecycle of a plagiarism, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the lifecycle of a plagiarism is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "observations-and-status", "name": "Observations and current status", "description": "What is observed about a plagiarism, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a plagiarism is recorded so that it can be superseded rather than overwritten.", "questions": [ { "id": "observation-record-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes an observation of a plagiarism, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "observation-record-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about an observation of a plagiarism, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "observation-record-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once an observation of a plagiarism is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "process-and-outcome", "name": "Process, inputs and outcome", "description": "How a plagiarism proceeds, what it needs and what it leaves behind.", "rationale": "An activity is known by its steps and its results, and both have to be recordable while it is still running.", "layers": [ { "id": "steps-and-sequence", "name": "Steps and sequence", "description": "The steps of a plagiarism, their order and what may run in parallel.", "findings": [ { "id": "steps-and-preconditions", "name": "Steps, preconditions and completion", "description": "What has to be true before each step of a plagiarism and what marks it done.", "questions": [ { "id": "steps-and-preconditions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a step of a plagiarism, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "steps-and-preconditions-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about a step of a plagiarism, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "steps-and-preconditions-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once a step of a plagiarism is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "inputs-and-results", "name": "Inputs, resources and results", "description": "What a plagiarism consumes and what it produces.", "findings": [ { "id": "inputs-and-outputs", "name": "Inputs, outputs and side effects", "description": "The resources a plagiarism takes and the results it leaves, wanted or not.", "questions": [ { "id": "inputs-and-outputs-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the inputs and results of a plagiarism, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "inputs-and-outputs-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the inputs and results of a plagiarism, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "inputs-and-outputs-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the inputs and results of a plagiarism is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "definitions-in-contest", "name": "Definitions and who holds them", "description": "What plagiarism is taken to mean, and by whom.", "rationale": "When a field disagrees about a concept, the disagreement is the content. A model that picks one definition silently destroys the information.", "layers": [ { "id": "competing-definitions", "name": "Competing definitions", "description": "The main readings and the traditions behind them.", "findings": [ { "id": "definition-map", "name": "Definitions and their holders", "description": "Each definition with the school or body that holds it.", "questions": [ { "id": "definition-map-q01", "text": "Which definitions of plagiarism are in use, and which tradition or body holds each?", "kind": "definition" }, { "id": "definition-map-q02", "text": "What turns on the difference between them in practice?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] }, { "id": "operationalisation", "name": "Operationalisation", "description": "How it is measured or applied when it has to be.", "findings": [ { "id": "operational-record", "name": "Measures and proxies", "description": "Instruments and indicators used to stand in for it.", "questions": [ { "id": "operational-record-q01", "text": "How is plagiarism operationalised or measured in practice, and by what instrument?", "kind": "measurement" }, { "id": "operational-record-q02", "text": "What does that operationalisation leave out, and when does that matter?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "instances-and-use", "name": "Instances, use and consequence", "description": "What counts as an instance of plagiarism and what follows from calling something that.", "rationale": "Applying a concept is an act with consequences, so a model must say what the label licenses and what it does not.", "layers": [ { "id": "instances", "name": "What counts as an instance", "description": "Clear cases, borderline cases and non-cases.", "findings": [ { "id": "instance-tests", "name": "Tests for an instance", "description": "What would settle whether something falls under it.", "questions": [ { "id": "instance-tests-q01", "text": "What would settle whether something is an instance of plagiarism?", "kind": "boundary" }, { "id": "instance-tests-q02", "text": "Which borderline cases are argued about, and on what grounds?", "kind": "definition" } ] } ] }, { "id": "consequence", "name": "Consequence of application", "description": "Rights, duties or decisions that follow from the label.", "findings": [ { "id": "consequence-record", "name": "What the label licenses", "description": "What an agent may do once something is classified this way.", "questions": [ { "id": "consequence-record-q01", "text": "What follows practically once something is treated as plagiarism?", "kind": "action" }, { "id": "consequence-record-q02", "text": "What must an agent not infer from the label alone?", "kind": "action" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "provenance-and-evidence", "name": "Provenance, evidence and time", "description": "Where every claim about a plagiarism came from and when it held.", "rationale": "A claim without a source and a time cannot be superseded, only overwritten, and an agent that overwrites loses the ability to explain itself.", "layers": [ { "id": "source-and-authority", "name": "Source and authority", "description": "Who said it, on what evidence, and how strongly.", "findings": [ { "id": "claim-provenance", "name": "Claim provenance and confidence", "description": "The authority behind each claim about a plagiarism and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a plagiarism, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "claim-provenance-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about a claim about a plagiarism, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "claim-provenance-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once a claim about a plagiarism is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "time-and-versions", "name": "Time, versions and supersession", "description": "When a claim was true, when it was learnt, and what replaced it.", "findings": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession", "name": "Validity period and supersession", "description": "How an old claim about a plagiarism is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a plagiarism, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the validity of a claim about a plagiarism, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the validity of a claim about a plagiarism is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 12, "findings": 14, "questions": 38 } } } }