ChatGPT not Useful as a Tool to Streamline Library Cataloguing Processes

IF 0.4 Q4 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Andrea Miller-Nesbitt
{"title":"ChatGPT not Useful as a Tool to Streamline Library Cataloguing Processes","authors":"Andrea Miller-Nesbitt","doi":"10.18438/eblip30524","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A Review of:\nBrzustowicz, R. (2023). From ChatGPT to CatGPT: The Implications of Artificial Intelligence on Library Cataloging. Information Technology and Libraries, 42(3). https://doi.org/10.5860/ital.v42i3.16295\nObjective – To evaluate the potential of ChatGPT as a tool for improving efficiency and accuracy in cataloguing library records.\nDesign – Observational, descriptive study.\nSetting – Online, using ChatGPT and the WorldCat catalogue.\nSubject – The Large Language Model (LLM) ChatGPT.\nMethods – Prompting ChatGPT to create MARC records for items in different formats and languages and comparing the ChatGPT derived records versus those obtained from the WorldCat catalogue.\nMain results – ChatGPT was able to generate MARC records, but the accuracy of the records was questionable, despite the authors’ claims.\nConclusion – Based on the results of this study, the author concludes that using ChatGPT to streamline the process of cataloging could allow library staff to focus time and energy on other types of work. However, the results presented suggest that ChatGPT introduces significant errors in the MARC records created, thereby requiring additional time for cataloguers to correct the error-laden records. The author correctly stresses that if ChatGPT were used to assist with cataloguing, it would remain important for professionals to check the records for completion and accuracy.","PeriodicalId":45227,"journal":{"name":"Evidence Based Library and Information Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence Based Library and Information Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip30524","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A Review of: Brzustowicz, R. (2023). From ChatGPT to CatGPT: The Implications of Artificial Intelligence on Library Cataloging. Information Technology and Libraries, 42(3). https://doi.org/10.5860/ital.v42i3.16295 Objective – To evaluate the potential of ChatGPT as a tool for improving efficiency and accuracy in cataloguing library records. Design – Observational, descriptive study. Setting – Online, using ChatGPT and the WorldCat catalogue. Subject – The Large Language Model (LLM) ChatGPT. Methods – Prompting ChatGPT to create MARC records for items in different formats and languages and comparing the ChatGPT derived records versus those obtained from the WorldCat catalogue. Main results – ChatGPT was able to generate MARC records, but the accuracy of the records was questionable, despite the authors’ claims. Conclusion – Based on the results of this study, the author concludes that using ChatGPT to streamline the process of cataloging could allow library staff to focus time and energy on other types of work. However, the results presented suggest that ChatGPT introduces significant errors in the MARC records created, thereby requiring additional time for cataloguers to correct the error-laden records. The author correctly stresses that if ChatGPT were used to assist with cataloguing, it would remain important for professionals to check the records for completion and accuracy.
ChatGPT 作为简化图书馆编目流程的工具并不实用
Brzustowicz, R. (2023).从 ChatGPT 到 CatGPT:信息技术与图书馆》,42(3)。信息技术与图书馆》,42(3)。https://doi.org/10.5860/ital.v42i3.16295Objective - 评估 ChatGPT 作为提高图书馆记录编目效率和准确性的工具的潜力。设计 - 观察性、描述性研究。设置 - 在线,使用 ChatGPT 和 WorldCat 目录。主题 - 大型语言模型 (LLM) ChatGPT。方法 - 提示 ChatGPT 为不同格式和语言的项目创建 MARC 记录,并将 ChatGPT 生成的记录与从 WorldCat 目录中获得的记录进行比较。主要结果 - ChatGPT 能够生成 MARC 记录,但记录的准确性值得怀疑,尽管作者声称这一点。结论 - 根据这项研究的结果,作者得出结论认为,使用 ChatGPT 简化编目流程可以让图书馆工作人员将时间和精力集中在其他类型的工作上。然而,研究结果表明,ChatGPT 在创建的 MARC 记录中引入了大量错误,因此编目员需要花费更多的时间来纠正错误记录。作者正确地强调,如果使用 ChatGPT 来协助编目,那么专业人员仍然有必要检查记录的完整性和准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
44
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信