环境传播文献的前瞻性:文献计量学与 ChatGPT

IF 2.3 Q3 REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING
Foresight Pub Date : 2024-08-08 DOI:10.1108/fs-12-2023-0253
Abdul Rahim Norhayati Rafida, A. W. Norailis
{"title":"环境传播文献的前瞻性:文献计量学与 ChatGPT","authors":"Abdul Rahim Norhayati Rafida, A. W. Norailis","doi":"10.1108/fs-12-2023-0253","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nEnvironmental communication has been a profession and a subject of study for decades. Communication currently revolves around the anthropogenic ecological catastrophe, which makes the field’s early self-description as a crisis discipline even more pertinent. How communication is used and perceived significantly impacts how human-caused climate disasters and other environmental and social problems develop and how solutions are offered. The phenomenon of technology has shown significant impacts on how people refer to environmental communication. While bibliometric analysis (BA) helps understand the trends, ChatGPT can generate information related to environmental communication. How are they different from each other? What are the limitations? This study aims to identify the trends and limitations of BA and ChatGPT that are associated with environmental communication.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nA qualitative approach is used, which refers to BA using the Biblioshiny software (n = 867) and content analysis on ChatGPT 3.5. It uses a systematic technique for keyword search, namely, environmental and communication, from 2000 to 2022.\n\n\nFindings\nThere has been a decrease in the scientific production of studies starting in 2021 and 2022, which is believed to be due to the COVID-19 pandemic. ChatGPT provides valuable information but is rather complimentary to BA. ChatGPT is unable to provide statistical information related to environmental communication among Scopus-indexed publications.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nThis study focuses on the literature published in Scopus from 2000 to 2022. The keyword is limited to “environmental” and “communication.” Besides, the choice of keywords made it specific to the studies involved in the BA, which may not include some other studies if the keywords are not listed.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThe originality of the research focuses on the field of environmental communication, its evolution within previous literature and the comparison between BA and the use of ChatGPT for understanding trends and limitations within this field. The text touches upon various aspects, such as the historical context of environmental communication, the impact of technology, the trends in scientific production among Scopus journal papers and the limitations of using ChatGPT compared to BA.\n","PeriodicalId":51620,"journal":{"name":"Foresight","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Foresight of environmental communication literatures: bibliometric versus ChatGPT\",\"authors\":\"Abdul Rahim Norhayati Rafida, A. W. Norailis\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/fs-12-2023-0253\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nEnvironmental communication has been a profession and a subject of study for decades. Communication currently revolves around the anthropogenic ecological catastrophe, which makes the field’s early self-description as a crisis discipline even more pertinent. How communication is used and perceived significantly impacts how human-caused climate disasters and other environmental and social problems develop and how solutions are offered. The phenomenon of technology has shown significant impacts on how people refer to environmental communication. While bibliometric analysis (BA) helps understand the trends, ChatGPT can generate information related to environmental communication. How are they different from each other? What are the limitations? This study aims to identify the trends and limitations of BA and ChatGPT that are associated with environmental communication.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nA qualitative approach is used, which refers to BA using the Biblioshiny software (n = 867) and content analysis on ChatGPT 3.5. It uses a systematic technique for keyword search, namely, environmental and communication, from 2000 to 2022.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThere has been a decrease in the scientific production of studies starting in 2021 and 2022, which is believed to be due to the COVID-19 pandemic. ChatGPT provides valuable information but is rather complimentary to BA. ChatGPT is unable to provide statistical information related to environmental communication among Scopus-indexed publications.\\n\\n\\nResearch limitations/implications\\nThis study focuses on the literature published in Scopus from 2000 to 2022. The keyword is limited to “environmental” and “communication.” Besides, the choice of keywords made it specific to the studies involved in the BA, which may not include some other studies if the keywords are not listed.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nThe originality of the research focuses on the field of environmental communication, its evolution within previous literature and the comparison between BA and the use of ChatGPT for understanding trends and limitations within this field. The text touches upon various aspects, such as the historical context of environmental communication, the impact of technology, the trends in scientific production among Scopus journal papers and the limitations of using ChatGPT compared to BA.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":51620,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Foresight\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Foresight\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/fs-12-2023-0253\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foresight","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/fs-12-2023-0253","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的几十年来,环境传播一直是一门专业和研究课题。目前,传播围绕着人为生态灾难展开,这使得该领域早期自我描述为一门危机学科变得更加贴切。如何使用传播和如何看待传播对人类造成的气候灾难和其他环境和社会问题的发展以及如何提供解决方案产生了重大影响。技术现象对人们如何看待环境传播产生了重大影响。文献计量分析(BA)有助于了解趋势,而 ChatGPT 则可以生成与环境传播相关的信息。它们之间有何不同?有哪些局限性?本研究旨在确定与环境交流相关的 BA 和 ChatGPT 的趋势和局限性。本研究采用定性方法,即使用 Biblioshiny 软件进行 BA(n = 867)和使用 ChatGPT 3.5 进行内容分析。研究结果从 2021 年和 2022 年开始,科学研究成果有所减少,这被认为是 COVID-19 大流行造成的。ChatGPT 提供了有价值的信息,但只是对 BA 的补充。ChatGPT 无法提供 Scopus 索引出版物中与环境传播相关的统计信息。研究局限性/意义本研究侧重于 2000 年至 2022 年在 Scopus 上发表的文献。关键词仅限于 "环境 "和 "传播"。原创性/价值本研究的原创性主要集中在环境传播领域,其在以往文献中的演变,以及对 BA 和 ChatGPT 的使用进行比较,以了解该领域的趋势和局限性。文章涉及多个方面,如环境传播的历史背景、技术的影响、Scopus 期刊论文的科学生产趋势以及与 BA 相比使用 ChatGPT 的局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Foresight of environmental communication literatures: bibliometric versus ChatGPT
Purpose Environmental communication has been a profession and a subject of study for decades. Communication currently revolves around the anthropogenic ecological catastrophe, which makes the field’s early self-description as a crisis discipline even more pertinent. How communication is used and perceived significantly impacts how human-caused climate disasters and other environmental and social problems develop and how solutions are offered. The phenomenon of technology has shown significant impacts on how people refer to environmental communication. While bibliometric analysis (BA) helps understand the trends, ChatGPT can generate information related to environmental communication. How are they different from each other? What are the limitations? This study aims to identify the trends and limitations of BA and ChatGPT that are associated with environmental communication. Design/methodology/approach A qualitative approach is used, which refers to BA using the Biblioshiny software (n = 867) and content analysis on ChatGPT 3.5. It uses a systematic technique for keyword search, namely, environmental and communication, from 2000 to 2022. Findings There has been a decrease in the scientific production of studies starting in 2021 and 2022, which is believed to be due to the COVID-19 pandemic. ChatGPT provides valuable information but is rather complimentary to BA. ChatGPT is unable to provide statistical information related to environmental communication among Scopus-indexed publications. Research limitations/implications This study focuses on the literature published in Scopus from 2000 to 2022. The keyword is limited to “environmental” and “communication.” Besides, the choice of keywords made it specific to the studies involved in the BA, which may not include some other studies if the keywords are not listed. Originality/value The originality of the research focuses on the field of environmental communication, its evolution within previous literature and the comparison between BA and the use of ChatGPT for understanding trends and limitations within this field. The text touches upon various aspects, such as the historical context of environmental communication, the impact of technology, the trends in scientific production among Scopus journal papers and the limitations of using ChatGPT compared to BA.
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
Foresight
Foresight REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
5.00%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: ■Social, political and economic science ■Sustainable development ■Horizon scanning ■Scientific and Technological Change and its implications for society and policy ■Management of Uncertainty, Complexity and Risk ■Foresight methodology, tools and techniques
×
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