Inicio
todoELE
  • Inicio
  • Materiales
    • πŸ“‹ Actividades
    • πŸ“ Conjugación
    • πŸ“Š Corpus
    • πŸ“” Diccionarios
    • βœ… Evaluación
    • βš™οΈ Gramática
    • πŸ“— Manuales
    • ✍️ Ortografía
    • πŸ“… Programación
    • πŸ—£οΈ Pronunciación
    • πŸ“ Recursos
    • πŸ”€ Vocabulario
    • πŸ’» Herramientas digitales
  • Formación
    • πŸ“š Bibliografía
    • πŸ‘₯ Congresos
    • πŸŽ“ Cursos
    • 🏫 Centros
    • 🏒 Organizaciones
    • πŸ“° Revistas
    • 🌍 Atlas de ELE
  • Trabajo
    • πŸ’Ό Ofertas de trabajo
    • ℹ️ Trabajo - Recursos
  • En la red
    • 🌐 Sitios ELE
    • πŸ“° Agregador
    • πŸ“§ Formespa
  • IA
    • ✨ Nuevos contenidos
    • πŸ“š Bibliografía IA
    • 🧰 Herramientas IA
    • πŸ’¬ Prompts
    • πŸ§ͺ Experiencias IA
    • 🌐 Sitios web IA
    • πŸ“° Actualidad IA
  • Comunidad
    • πŸ“° Actualidad ELE
    • 😊 Anécdotas ELE
    • πŸ“ Blog
    • πŸ“ŒTablón de anuncios
  • Buscar

Ruta de navegación

  • Inicio
  • Bibliografia
  • Heads we win, tails you lose: AI detectors in education

Sección IA: Inteligencia artificial Bibliografía

Heads we win, tails you lose: AI detectors in education

Mark A. Bassett
Wayne Bradshaw
Hannah Bornsztejn
Alyce Hogg
Kane Murdoch
Bridget Pearce
Colin Webber
2026
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management
https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2026.2…
artículo
trabajo teórico
inteligencia artificial
integridad académica
evaluación
educación superior
IA y evaluación
ética de la IA

Texto completo

The increasing use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in student assessment has led to institutional reliance on detection tools. Unlike plagiarism detection, AI detection relies on unverifiable probabilistic estimates. In this paper, we argue that generative AI detection should not be used in education due to its methodological imperfections, violation of procedural fairness, and unverifiable outputs. Generative AI detectors cannot be tested in real-world conditions where the true origin of a text is unknown. Attempts to validate results through linguistic markers, multiple tools, or comparisons with past work introduce confirmation bias rather than independent verification. Moreover, categorising text as human- or AI-generated imposes a false dichotomy that ignores work created with, not by, AI. Generative AI detection also raises security concerns. Academic integrity investigations must rely on evidence meeting the balance of probabilities standard, which generative AI detection scores do not satisfy.

Publicado en línea en 2026. Texto completo en abierto (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).

  • Inicie sesión para enviar comentarios

Enviar publicación

Contenidos relacionados

  • (Re)defining ethical assessment with the advent of GenAI
  • AI detectors in universities: Time to turn them off and embrace AI for enhanced learning
  • The opposite of cheating: Teaching for integrity in the age of AI
  • Generative AI detection in higher education assessments
  • Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
  • More than words: How to think about writing in the age of AI
Sobre Todoele Índice Publica Contacto: todoele@gmail.com
Política de privacidad Créditos