走向非以人为中心的设计:用ChatGPT设计一篇学术文章

IF 2.6 4区 管理学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Profesional De La Informacion Pub Date : 2023-09-26 DOI:10.3145/epi.2023.sep.12
Tuba Livberber
{"title":"走向非以人为中心的设计:用ChatGPT设计一篇学术文章","authors":"Tuba Livberber","doi":"10.3145/epi.2023.sep.12","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Non-human-centered design tools, such as ChatGPT, have shown potential as effective aids in academic article design. This study conducts a comparative evaluation of ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4, examining their capabilities and limitations in supporting the academic article design process. The study aims to demonstrate the utility of ChatGPT as a writing tool and investigate its applicability and efficacy in the context of academic paper design. The author interacted with both versions of ChatGPT, providing prompts and analyzing the generated responses. In addition, a different expert academic was consulted to assess the appropriateness of the ChatGPT responses. The findings suggest that ChatGPT, despite its limitations, could serve as a useful tool for academic writing, particularly in the design of academic articles. Despite the limitations of both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, GPT-3.5 offers a broader perspective, whereas GPT-4 provides a more in-depth and detailed approach to the design of articles. ChatGPT exhibits capabilities in aiding the design process, generating ideas aligned with the overall purpose and focus of the paper, producing consistent and contextually relevant responses to various natural language inputs, partially assisting in literature reviews, supporting paper design in terms of both content and format, and providing reasonable editing and proofreading for articles. However, limitations were identified, including reduced critical thinking, potential for plagiarism, risk of misinformation, lack of originality and innovation, and limited access to literature.","PeriodicalId":20684,"journal":{"name":"Profesional De La Informacion","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Toward non-human-centered design: designing an academic article with ChatGPT\",\"authors\":\"Tuba Livberber\",\"doi\":\"10.3145/epi.2023.sep.12\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Non-human-centered design tools, such as ChatGPT, have shown potential as effective aids in academic article design. This study conducts a comparative evaluation of ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4, examining their capabilities and limitations in supporting the academic article design process. The study aims to demonstrate the utility of ChatGPT as a writing tool and investigate its applicability and efficacy in the context of academic paper design. The author interacted with both versions of ChatGPT, providing prompts and analyzing the generated responses. In addition, a different expert academic was consulted to assess the appropriateness of the ChatGPT responses. The findings suggest that ChatGPT, despite its limitations, could serve as a useful tool for academic writing, particularly in the design of academic articles. Despite the limitations of both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, GPT-3.5 offers a broader perspective, whereas GPT-4 provides a more in-depth and detailed approach to the design of articles. ChatGPT exhibits capabilities in aiding the design process, generating ideas aligned with the overall purpose and focus of the paper, producing consistent and contextually relevant responses to various natural language inputs, partially assisting in literature reviews, supporting paper design in terms of both content and format, and providing reasonable editing and proofreading for articles. However, limitations were identified, including reduced critical thinking, potential for plagiarism, risk of misinformation, lack of originality and innovation, and limited access to literature.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20684,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Profesional De La Informacion\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Profesional De La Informacion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2023.sep.12\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Profesional De La Informacion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2023.sep.12","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

非以人为中心的设计工具,如ChatGPT,已经显示出在学术文章设计中作为有效辅助工具的潜力。本研究对ChatGPT-3.5和ChatGPT-4进行了比较评估,考察了它们在支持学术文章设计过程中的能力和局限性。本研究旨在证明ChatGPT作为一种写作工具的实用性,并研究其在学术论文设计中的适用性和有效性。作者与两个版本的ChatGPT进行了交互,提供提示并分析生成的响应。此外,还咨询了另一位专家学者来评估ChatGPT回答的适当性。研究结果表明,尽管ChatGPT有其局限性,但它可以作为一种有用的学术写作工具,特别是在学术文章的设计中。尽管GPT-3.5和GPT-4都有局限性,但GPT-3.5提供了更广阔的视角,而GPT-4提供了更深入和详细的文章设计方法。ChatGPT展示了帮助设计过程的能力,产生与论文的总体目的和重点一致的想法,对各种自然语言输入产生一致的和上下文相关的响应,部分协助文献综述,在内容和格式方面支持论文设计,并为文章提供合理的编辑和校对。然而,我们也发现了一些限制,包括批判性思维的减少、抄袭的可能性、错误信息的风险、缺乏原创性和创新以及获取文献的机会有限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Toward non-human-centered design: designing an academic article with ChatGPT
Non-human-centered design tools, such as ChatGPT, have shown potential as effective aids in academic article design. This study conducts a comparative evaluation of ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4, examining their capabilities and limitations in supporting the academic article design process. The study aims to demonstrate the utility of ChatGPT as a writing tool and investigate its applicability and efficacy in the context of academic paper design. The author interacted with both versions of ChatGPT, providing prompts and analyzing the generated responses. In addition, a different expert academic was consulted to assess the appropriateness of the ChatGPT responses. The findings suggest that ChatGPT, despite its limitations, could serve as a useful tool for academic writing, particularly in the design of academic articles. Despite the limitations of both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, GPT-3.5 offers a broader perspective, whereas GPT-4 provides a more in-depth and detailed approach to the design of articles. ChatGPT exhibits capabilities in aiding the design process, generating ideas aligned with the overall purpose and focus of the paper, producing consistent and contextually relevant responses to various natural language inputs, partially assisting in literature reviews, supporting paper design in terms of both content and format, and providing reasonable editing and proofreading for articles. However, limitations were identified, including reduced critical thinking, potential for plagiarism, risk of misinformation, lack of originality and innovation, and limited access to literature.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
9.50%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: El profesional de la información es una revista sobre información, bibliotecas y nuevas tecnologías de la información. Primera revista española de Biblioteconomía y Documentación indexada por las dos bases de datos bibliográficas internacionales más importantes: ISI Social Science Citation Index y Scopus
期刊最新文献
Perceptions of online education among 16-18-year-olds: Differences and similarities in their interests and preferred formats according to where they live Informal learning of Spanish in a Chinese music fan community Social responsibility of Spanish universities for sustainable relationships Political polarization and politainment: Methodology for analyzing crypto hate speech on TikTok Political polarization and emotion rhetoric in the US presidential transition: A comparative study of Trump and Biden on Twitter and the post-election impact on the public
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1