arXiv preprint ·
From Policing Provenance to Designing for Evidence: Testing Four Propositions on Generative AI Against Research and Institutional Policy
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Generative AI has made it hard to establish whether a student produced a piece of assessed work. Building on the argument that validity matters more than cheating, this paper tests four propositions drawn from a strongly stated position: that redesign is more sustainable than detecting or banning AI; that asking students whether and how much AI they used yields low-value information; that unaided ability should be tested directly in controlled conditions; and that the same logic applies to peer review. The propositions are tested against two purposively sampled, coded corpora: 41 research and sector sources and 55 university and sector policy documents. Coding was by a single coder and the policy sample is UK-weighted, so counts describe the sample, not the sector. The propositions hold unevenly. Redesign over detection is well supported, but only as redesign plus assurance: 4 of 55 documents prohibit AI by default, though about 10 of the 55 are publisher or editorial policies that govern authors rather than student assessment; of the 23 that take a position on detection, 16 reject detectors and one requires them. Testing unaided ability is supported as one lane within a programme, not as a return to invigilation. The disclosure proposition is complicated: institutions treat disclosure as valuable, yet the limited evidence suggests many students do not complete required declarations. The peer-review extension is plausible but under-examined. The field is converging on graded permission scales and two-lane designs, and 31 of 55 documents define named categories of use. From these findings the paper builds a nine-step decision chain that extends outcome-first design logic: the role of AI is decided after the evidence an outcome requires. It also separates design moves that add temporary friction from those that provide assurance. A worked example and the full policy matrix are included.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computers & Society
Do Social Influence Pressures Move LLM Agents? Evidence from Delegated Audit Judgment
BanglishDepYT: Depression Detection in Native Bengali Social Media with Emotion-Preserving Preprocessing and Domain-Adaptive Pretraining
Dual-Axis Policy Entailment: A Benchmark for Policy-Change Reasoning
Rubric-Based Assessment of Student Reports Using Small Language Models
ROD-Dataset: A Pedestrian-Perspective Benchmark of Urban Obstacle Classes for YOLO-Based Detection
Get the few papers worth your time in Computers & Society every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.