Ch(e)atGPT? An anecdotal approach addressing the impact of ChatGPT on teaching and learning GIScience
Published version of a preprint
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
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?
ChatGPT, acting as a fictional student, effectively completed most assignments in an Australian Master's program for Geographic Systems and Science.
“A case study conducted in an Australian Master's program for Geographic Systems and Science found that ChatGPT, acting as a fictional student, effectively completed most assignments (e.g., coding; Stutz et al., 2023).”
From A systematic review of the early impact of artificial intelligence on higher education curriculum, instruction, and assessment (2025) · cites this paper as Stutz et al., 2023
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148 · Cited by 3,087 · see citing works
Chatting and Cheating. Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
Cotton, D., Cotton, P., & Shipway, J. R. (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/mrz8h · Cited by 3,079 · see citing works
ChatGPT is fun, but not an author
Thorp, H. H. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adg7879 · Cited by 1,437 · see citing works
Gao, C. A., Howard, F. M., Markov, N. S., Dyer, E. C., Ramesh, S., Luo, Y., & Pearson, A. T. (2022) · doi:10.1101/2022.12.23.521610 · Cited by 1,099 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Cotton et al. (2023) demonstrate the capabilities of ChatGPT to write academic papers; Gao et al. (2022) show that it is difficult for reviewers to distinguish Science announced an update of editorial policies, prohibiting the use of AI tools when writing scientific papers (Thorp, 2023).”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, C. A., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J. D. & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon (Pearson Education Group).
- Trummer, I. (2022). CodexDB: Synthesizing code for query processing from natural language instructions using GPT-3 Codex. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 15(11), 2921-2928. Turnitin Similarity [Plagiarism detection software]. (2023). Retrieved from https://www.turnitin.com/products/similarity. (last access: 27.01.2023) ZeroGPT [AI text detector] (2023). Retrieved from https://www.zerogpt.com/ (last access: 27.01.2023)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
What Is the Impact of ChatGPT on Education? A Rapid Review of the Literature
Lo, C. K. (2023) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci13040410 · Cited by 2,024 · see citing works
A Scoping Review on How Generative Artificial Intelligence Transforms Assessment in Higher Education
Xia, Q., Weng, X., Ouyang, F., Lin, T. J., & Chiu, T. K. F. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-024-00468-z · Cited by 493 · see citing works
Liang, J., Stephens, J. M., & Brown, G. T. L. (2025) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2025.1522841 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
Navigating Generative AI (ChatGPT) in Higher Education: Opportunities and Challenges
Wang, T. (2023) · Lecture Notes in Educational Technology · doi:10.1007/978-981-99-5961-7_28 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
- Authors
- Stutz, P., Elixhauser, M., Grubinger-Preiner, J., Linner, V., Reibersdorfer-Adelsberger, E., Traun, C., Wallentin, G., Wöhs, K., & Zuberbühler, T.
- Venue
- GI_Forum
- Published
- 2023
- Volume
- 1
- Pages
- 140-147
- ISSN
- 2308-1708
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 4
- 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
