Cited by 17Translation Studies and PracticesInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorLibrary Science and Information Literacy

Student translators’ web-based vs. GenAI-based information-seeking behavior in translation process: a comparative study

Cai, Yuxing, Tian, Sha·2025·Education and Information Technologies

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10639-025-13523-7

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Cai, Y., & Tian, S.
Affiliations
  • Xiangtan University (CN)
  • Central South University (CN)
Corresponding author
Tian, Sha
Venue
Education and Information Technologies
Published
2025-04-05
Volume
30
Issue
13
Pages
18997-19025
ISSN
  • 1360-2357 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7608
OpenAlex
W4409190131
Cited by
17
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 4
FWCI
33.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Education and Information Technologies (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Social Science Foundation of China (21CYY004)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Translation Studies and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
Keywords
information seeking, student translators, generative AI, ChatGPT, web search, translation process, AI reliance, screen recording, translation pedagogy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review