在以词汇为导向的阅读任务中,OpenAI GPT 生成的定义与英语学习者词典中的定义的效果对比

IF 0.8 2区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS International Journal of Lexicography Pub Date : 2023-12-14 DOI:10.1093/ijl/ecad030
Geraint Paul Rees, Robert Lew
{"title":"在以词汇为导向的阅读任务中,OpenAI GPT 生成的定义与英语学习者词典中的定义的效果对比","authors":"Geraint Paul Rees, Robert Lew","doi":"10.1093/ijl/ecad030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In metalexicographical research, experts have judged the performance of technologies such as OpenAI Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT) in lexicographic production tasks as promising yet inferior to human lexicographers. It remains unclear whether this perceived inferiority limits the effectiveness of AI-generated lexicography in resolving practical language doubts. Accordingly, this study compares the effectiveness of AI-generated definitions to those from the Macmillan English Dictionary (MED) in resolving vocabulary doubts in a multiple-choice reading task designed to test lexical knowledge. It involves 43 L2 English users in the third year of an English studies degree at a Spanish university. Students provided with MED definitions performed better on the reading task than those without access to definitions. However, there was no significant difference between the performance of students with either MED definitions or without definitions altogether, and those provided with AI-definitions. The implications of these findings are discussed along with avenues for further research.","PeriodicalId":45657,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Lexicography","volume":"66 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Effectiveness of OpenAI GPT-Generated Definitions Versus Definitions from an English Learners’ Dictionary in a Lexically Orientated Reading Task\",\"authors\":\"Geraint Paul Rees, Robert Lew\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ijl/ecad030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In metalexicographical research, experts have judged the performance of technologies such as OpenAI Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT) in lexicographic production tasks as promising yet inferior to human lexicographers. It remains unclear whether this perceived inferiority limits the effectiveness of AI-generated lexicography in resolving practical language doubts. Accordingly, this study compares the effectiveness of AI-generated definitions to those from the Macmillan English Dictionary (MED) in resolving vocabulary doubts in a multiple-choice reading task designed to test lexical knowledge. It involves 43 L2 English users in the third year of an English studies degree at a Spanish university. Students provided with MED definitions performed better on the reading task than those without access to definitions. However, there was no significant difference between the performance of students with either MED definitions or without definitions altogether, and those provided with AI-definitions. The implications of these findings are discussed along with avenues for further research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45657,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Lexicography\",\"volume\":\"66 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Lexicography\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecad030\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Lexicography","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecad030","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在元词典编纂研究中,专家们认为,OpenAI生成预训练转换器(GPT)等技术在词典编纂工作中的表现很有前景,但不如人类词典编纂者。目前尚不清楚这种自卑感是否限制了人工智能生成的词典编纂在解决实际语言问题方面的有效性。因此,本研究比较了人工智能生成的定义和来自麦克米伦英语词典(MED)的定义在解决一个旨在测试词汇知识的多项选择阅读任务中的词汇疑问方面的有效性。它涉及43名西班牙大学英语研究学位三年级的第二语言英语使用者。有MED定义的学生比没有MED定义的学生在阅读任务上表现得更好。然而,有MED定义或完全没有定义的学生与有ai定义的学生之间的表现没有显著差异。讨论了这些发现的含义以及进一步研究的途径。
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
The Effectiveness of OpenAI GPT-Generated Definitions Versus Definitions from an English Learners’ Dictionary in a Lexically Orientated Reading Task
In metalexicographical research, experts have judged the performance of technologies such as OpenAI Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT) in lexicographic production tasks as promising yet inferior to human lexicographers. It remains unclear whether this perceived inferiority limits the effectiveness of AI-generated lexicography in resolving practical language doubts. Accordingly, this study compares the effectiveness of AI-generated definitions to those from the Macmillan English Dictionary (MED) in resolving vocabulary doubts in a multiple-choice reading task designed to test lexical knowledge. It involves 43 L2 English users in the third year of an English studies degree at a Spanish university. Students provided with MED definitions performed better on the reading task than those without access to definitions. However, there was no significant difference between the performance of students with either MED definitions or without definitions altogether, and those provided with AI-definitions. The implications of these findings are discussed along with avenues for further research.
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
1.90
自引率
20.00%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Lexicography was launched in 1988. Interdisciplinary as well as international, it is concerned with all aspects of lexicography, including issues of design, compilation and use, and with dictionaries of all languages, though the chief focus is on dictionaries of the major European languages - monolingual and bilingual, synchronic and diachronic, pedagogical and encyclopedic. The Journal recognizes the vital role of lexicographical theory and research, and of developments in related fields such as computational linguistics, and welcomes contributions in these areas.
期刊最新文献
The Lexicographic Process Revisited Preparation of Material for Compiling an English–Slovene Dictionary of Criminal Justice and Security Collocations Anthropocentrism in Contemporary Chinese Dictionary: A Synergic Perspective of Critical Lexicographical Discourse Studies and Systemic Functional Linguistics IDS-Neo2020+: A Novel Resource for New German Words in Use Print Dictionaries Are Still in Use: A Survey of Source Preferences by Polish Translators
×
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