用ChatGPT评估学术研究的社会影响:影响案例研究评估

IF 4.3 2区 管理学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Kayvan Kousha, Mike Thelwall
{"title":"用ChatGPT评估学术研究的社会影响:影响案例研究评估","authors":"Kayvan Kousha,&nbsp;Mike Thelwall","doi":"10.1002/asi.25021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Academics and departments are sometimes judged by how their research has benefited society. For example, the UK's Research Excellence Framework (REF) assesses Impact Case Studies (ICSs), which are five-page evidence-based claims of societal impacts. This article investigates whether ChatGPT can evaluate societal impact claims and therefore potentially support expert human assessors. For this, various parts of 6220 public ICSs from REF2021 were fed to ChatGPT 4o-mini along with the REF2021 evaluation guidelines, comparing ChatGPT's predictions with published departmental average ICS scores. The results suggest that the optimal strategy for high correlations with expert scores is to input the title and summary of an ICS but not the remaining text and to modify the original REF guidelines to encourage a stricter evaluation. The scores generated by this approach correlated positively with departmental average scores in all 34 Units of Assessment (UoAs), with values between 0.18 (Economics and Econometrics) and 0.56 (Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience). At the departmental level, the corresponding correlations were higher, reaching 0.71 for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Leisure and Tourism. Thus, ChatGPT-based ICS evaluations are simple and viable to support or cross-check expert judgments, although their value varies substantially between fields.</p>","PeriodicalId":48810,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology","volume":"76 10","pages":"1357-1373"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/asi.25021","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the societal influence of academic research with ChatGPT: Impact case study evaluations\",\"authors\":\"Kayvan Kousha,&nbsp;Mike Thelwall\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/asi.25021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Academics and departments are sometimes judged by how their research has benefited society. For example, the UK's Research Excellence Framework (REF) assesses Impact Case Studies (ICSs), which are five-page evidence-based claims of societal impacts. This article investigates whether ChatGPT can evaluate societal impact claims and therefore potentially support expert human assessors. For this, various parts of 6220 public ICSs from REF2021 were fed to ChatGPT 4o-mini along with the REF2021 evaluation guidelines, comparing ChatGPT's predictions with published departmental average ICS scores. The results suggest that the optimal strategy for high correlations with expert scores is to input the title and summary of an ICS but not the remaining text and to modify the original REF guidelines to encourage a stricter evaluation. The scores generated by this approach correlated positively with departmental average scores in all 34 Units of Assessment (UoAs), with values between 0.18 (Economics and Econometrics) and 0.56 (Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience). At the departmental level, the corresponding correlations were higher, reaching 0.71 for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Leisure and Tourism. Thus, ChatGPT-based ICS evaluations are simple and viable to support or cross-check expert judgments, although their value varies substantially between fields.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48810,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology\",\"volume\":\"76 10\",\"pages\":\"1357-1373\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/asi.25021\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.25021\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.25021","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人们有时会根据他们的研究如何造福社会来评判学者和院系。例如,英国的卓越研究框架(REF)评估影响案例研究(ics),这是五页的基于证据的社会影响声明。本文调查了ChatGPT是否可以评估社会影响索赔,从而潜在地支持专家评估人员。为此,将REF2021中的6220个公共ICS的各个部分与REF2021评估指南一起输入ChatGPT 40 -mini,将ChatGPT的预测与公布的部门平均ICS分数进行比较。结果表明,与专家分数高相关性的最佳策略是输入ICS的标题和摘要,而不是其余文本,并修改原始REF指南以鼓励更严格的评估。这种方法产生的分数与所有34个评估单元(uoa)的院系平均分数呈正相关,其值在0.18(经济学和计量经济学)和0.56(心理学,精神病学和神经科学)之间。在部门层面,相应的相关性更高,体育与运动科学,休闲与旅游达到0.71。因此,基于chatgpt的ICS评估简单可行,可以支持或交叉检查专家判断,尽管它们的价值在不同领域之间存在很大差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Assessing the societal influence of academic research with ChatGPT: Impact case study evaluations

Assessing the societal influence of academic research with ChatGPT: Impact case study evaluations

Assessing the societal influence of academic research with ChatGPT: Impact case study evaluations

Assessing the societal influence of academic research with ChatGPT: Impact case study evaluations

Assessing the societal influence of academic research with ChatGPT: Impact case study evaluations

Academics and departments are sometimes judged by how their research has benefited society. For example, the UK's Research Excellence Framework (REF) assesses Impact Case Studies (ICSs), which are five-page evidence-based claims of societal impacts. This article investigates whether ChatGPT can evaluate societal impact claims and therefore potentially support expert human assessors. For this, various parts of 6220 public ICSs from REF2021 were fed to ChatGPT 4o-mini along with the REF2021 evaluation guidelines, comparing ChatGPT's predictions with published departmental average ICS scores. The results suggest that the optimal strategy for high correlations with expert scores is to input the title and summary of an ICS but not the remaining text and to modify the original REF guidelines to encourage a stricter evaluation. The scores generated by this approach correlated positively with departmental average scores in all 34 Units of Assessment (UoAs), with values between 0.18 (Economics and Econometrics) and 0.56 (Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience). At the departmental level, the corresponding correlations were higher, reaching 0.71 for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Leisure and Tourism. Thus, ChatGPT-based ICS evaluations are simple and viable to support or cross-check expert judgments, although their value varies substantially between fields.

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
8.30
自引率
8.60%
发文量
115
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST) is a leading international forum for peer-reviewed research in information science. For more than half a century, JASIST has provided intellectual leadership by publishing original research that focuses on the production, discovery, recording, storage, representation, retrieval, presentation, manipulation, dissemination, use, and evaluation of information and on the tools and techniques associated with these processes. The Journal welcomes rigorous work of an empirical, experimental, ethnographic, conceptual, historical, socio-technical, policy-analytic, or critical-theoretical nature. JASIST also commissions in-depth review articles (“Advances in Information Science”) and reviews of print and other media.
×
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