学术界的人工智能工具:评估NotebookLM作为进行文献综述的工具。

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Rachel Shor, Elizabeth A Greene, Luke Sumberg, Aaron B Weingrad
{"title":"学术界的人工智能工具:评估NotebookLM作为进行文献综述的工具。","authors":"Rachel Shor, Elizabeth A Greene, Luke Sumberg, Aaron B Weingrad","doi":"10.1080/00332747.2025.2541531","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The proliferation of access to generative AI tools has the potential to radically alter the process of writing manuscripts. This report evaluates NotebookLM as a tool for conducting a literature review in an ethical and responsible manner.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We uploaded 22 relevant papers from the Army Study to Assess Risk and Resilience in Servicemembers (Army STARRS) to NotebookLM and asked questions pertaining to a hypothetical research paper. We investigated the capabilities, limitations, ethical considerations, and privacy implications of using NotebookLM and engaged in a dialogue with the tool through a series of user-written prompts and AI responses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that the variability and utility of responsesweres determined in large part by the ability to write meaningful prompts and the extent to which new prompts provided additional information. Investigating how NotebookLM identified key findings enhanced our prompt generation and subsequently the iterative refinement of output to produce information relevant to our mock literature review.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The utility of NotebookLM will likely vary by the quality of source material uploaded into the program and the researcher's familiarity with prompt generation. There are a number of benefits and drawbacks to using this tool as a search engine or conversation partner. Ethical considerations and privacy implications of using NotebookLM are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":49656,"journal":{"name":"Psychiatry-Interpersonal and Biological Processes","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"AI Tools in Academia: Evaluating NotebookLM as a Tool for Conducting Literature Reviews.\",\"authors\":\"Rachel Shor, Elizabeth A Greene, Luke Sumberg, Aaron B Weingrad\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00332747.2025.2541531\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The proliferation of access to generative AI tools has the potential to radically alter the process of writing manuscripts. This report evaluates NotebookLM as a tool for conducting a literature review in an ethical and responsible manner.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We uploaded 22 relevant papers from the Army Study to Assess Risk and Resilience in Servicemembers (Army STARRS) to NotebookLM and asked questions pertaining to a hypothetical research paper. We investigated the capabilities, limitations, ethical considerations, and privacy implications of using NotebookLM and engaged in a dialogue with the tool through a series of user-written prompts and AI responses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that the variability and utility of responsesweres determined in large part by the ability to write meaningful prompts and the extent to which new prompts provided additional information. Investigating how NotebookLM identified key findings enhanced our prompt generation and subsequently the iterative refinement of output to produce information relevant to our mock literature review.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The utility of NotebookLM will likely vary by the quality of source material uploaded into the program and the researcher's familiarity with prompt generation. There are a number of benefits and drawbacks to using this tool as a search engine or conversation partner. Ethical considerations and privacy implications of using NotebookLM are discussed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49656,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychiatry-Interpersonal and Biological Processes\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-10\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychiatry-Interpersonal and Biological Processes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.2025.2541531\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychiatry-Interpersonal and Biological Processes","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.2025.2541531","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:生成式人工智能工具的普及有可能从根本上改变撰写手稿的过程。本报告以道德和负责任的方式评估NotebookLM作为进行文献综述的工具。方法:我们将22篇来自陆军评估服务人员风险和弹性研究(Army STARRS)的相关论文上传至NotebookLM,并就一篇假设的研究论文提出问题。我们调查了使用NotebookLM的功能、限制、道德考虑和隐私含义,并通过一系列用户编写的提示和AI响应与该工具进行了对话。结果:我们发现,回答的可变性和效用在很大程度上取决于编写有意义的提示的能力,以及新提示提供额外信息的程度。研究NotebookLM如何识别关键发现,增强了我们的提示生成,并随后对输出进行迭代改进,以产生与我们的模拟文献综述相关的信息。结论:NotebookLM的效用可能会因上传到程序中的源材料的质量和研究人员对提示生成的熟悉程度而有所不同。使用这个工具作为搜索引擎或对话伙伴有很多好处和缺点。讨论了使用NotebookLM的伦理考虑和隐私含义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
AI Tools in Academia: Evaluating NotebookLM as a Tool for Conducting Literature Reviews.

Objective: The proliferation of access to generative AI tools has the potential to radically alter the process of writing manuscripts. This report evaluates NotebookLM as a tool for conducting a literature review in an ethical and responsible manner.

Method: We uploaded 22 relevant papers from the Army Study to Assess Risk and Resilience in Servicemembers (Army STARRS) to NotebookLM and asked questions pertaining to a hypothetical research paper. We investigated the capabilities, limitations, ethical considerations, and privacy implications of using NotebookLM and engaged in a dialogue with the tool through a series of user-written prompts and AI responses.

Results: We found that the variability and utility of responsesweres determined in large part by the ability to write meaningful prompts and the extent to which new prompts provided additional information. Investigating how NotebookLM identified key findings enhanced our prompt generation and subsequently the iterative refinement of output to produce information relevant to our mock literature review.

Conclusions: The utility of NotebookLM will likely vary by the quality of source material uploaded into the program and the researcher's familiarity with prompt generation. There are a number of benefits and drawbacks to using this tool as a search engine or conversation partner. Ethical considerations and privacy implications of using NotebookLM are discussed.

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
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Internationally recognized, Psychiatry has responded to rapid research advances in psychiatry, psychology, neuroscience, trauma, and psychopathology. Increasingly, studies in these areas are being placed in the context of human development across the lifespan, and the multiple systems that influence individual functioning. This journal provides broadly applicable and effective strategies for dealing with the major unsolved problems in the field.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信