The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Pandora's Can of Worms: A Year of Generative AI in Higher Education
Abstract
abstract: In the year since ChatGPT was released by OpenAI, librarians, instructors, and higher education administrators have grappled with generative artificial intelligence (AI) and its implications for teaching, learning, research, and writing. Drawn from informal conversations, professional observations, discussion groups, and professional development events, this article reports on the experience of learning about generative AI at one university. This article considers ways that educators may use AI tools and reasons to resist adopting generative AI tools, situating uses on a spectrum of acceptability.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
In the citing paper
“Generative artificial intelligence is increasingly being applied in scholarly research, education, and publishing.”
From Guidance on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence for SPUR Authors, Reviewers, and Readers (2025) · cites this paper as Miller 2024
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Daniel, K., Msambwa, M. M., & Wen, Z. (2025) · European Journal of Education · doi:10.1111/ejed.70036 · Cited by 71
de Fine Licht, K. (2024) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-024-00799-9 · Cited by 40
Guidance on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence for SPUR Authors, Reviewers, and Readers
Mabrouk, P. A. (2025) · Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research · doi:10.18833/spur/8/2/4
Metadata
- Authors
- Miller, R. E.
- Venue
- portal: Libraries and the Academy
- Publisher
- Project MUSE
- Published
- 2024-01
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 21-34
- ISSN
- 1530-7131
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
