- #18,901
Borg
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 2,183
- 4,306
I guess that I'll point out that the persons using them in my case weren't the sharpest tools in the box either.
Nope. The reviewer was required to state what was plagerized and specifically noted those items.WWGD said:It's always possible things happened the other way round, and your content was copied somehow, somewhat, into public sources.
Or to quote Tom Lehrer:phinds said:from my wood ID web site:
View attachment 344313
Ibix said:Or to quote Tom Lehrer:
Plagiarise! Plagiarise!
Let no one else's work evade your eyes!
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes!
So don't shade your eyes, but plagiarise,
Plagiarise, plagiarise, plagiarise!
(Only be sure to call it always please, "research".)
Both on topic and derailed in one post. I'm quite proud of it.Orodruin said:Oh look, we’re back on topic!
I meant in a general sense.Borg said:Nope. The reviewer was required to state what was plagerized and specifically noted those items.
Well, they still are detectors, they're just rally bad at it - very high false-positive track record. :)Orodruin said:these tools are not "plagiarism detectors", they are text matching tools.
False positive, or false inference/conclusion? Just because there is a match, there is not necessarily plagiarism. For example, if I enclose a sentence or two in quotes and add a [1] reference, do these tools understand that?DaveC426913 said:very high false-positive track record
Very much not. That is up to the user.berkeman said:For example, if I enclose a sentence or two in quotes and add a [1] reference, do these tools understand that?
Yikes. How am I supposed to quote from another paper with attribution? I'm probably misunderstanding your reply.Orodruin said:Very much not. That is up to the user.
As I said, it is a text matching tool. If you quote something verbatim then obviously it is going to return a match. It is up to the user of the tool to determine if it is actual plagiarism or not.berkeman said:Yikes. How am I supposed to quote from another paper with attribution? I'm probably misunderstanding your reply.
Borg said:I got 'caught' by a plagiarism program once on an exam where I was instructed to submit my exam with specific section and title names. It flagged those items.
The detector simply detects what it is programmed to detect, much like a pregnancy test. Pregnancy test are still pregnancy tests, even what they are detecting is HCG and have a degree of error in what conclusions should be inferred from that.berkeman said:False positive, or false inference/conclusion? Just because there is a match, there is not necessarily plagiarism. For example, if I enclose a sentence or two in quotes and add a [1] reference, do these tools understand that?
By that logic, the previous several messages were plagiarizing a preceding message, just like this one.berkeman said:Yikes. How am I supposed to quote from another paper with attribution? I'm probably misunderstanding your reply.
BillTre said:By that logic, the previous several messages were plagiarizing a preceding message, just like this one.
Isn't he entitled to a jury of his peers? The fire hydrant and the tree at least look more like pee-ees.dextercioby said: