The DOI matches its DataCite record.
ChatGPT: A tool to embrace or ban in Academia?
Open accessAbstract
ChatGPT: A tool to embrace or ban in Academia? Opinion piece
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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
“the non-deterministic nature of ChatGPT (Qureshi, 2023) and the lack of clarity surrounding its analytical processes pose problems for replicability and repeatability”
From Generative AI for corpus approaches to discourse studies: A critical evaluation of ChatGPT (2024) · cites this paper as Qureshi, 2023
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Generative AI for corpus approaches to discourse studies: A critical evaluation of ChatGPT
Curry, N., Baker, P., & Brookes, G. (2024) · Applied Corpus Linguistics · doi:10.1016/j.acorp.2023.100082 · Cited by 102
Metadata
- Authors
- Qureshi, M. A.
- Affiliations
- Technological University Dublin (IE)
- Corresponding author
- Qureshi, Muhammad Atif
- Venue
- Technological University Dublin
- Publisher
- Technological University Dublin
- Published
- 2023
- OpenAlex
- W6945149154
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 0.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- it
- Open access
- green
- arrow.tudublin.ie
- Licence
- cc-by-sa
- Locations
- Arrow - TU Dublin (Technological University Dublin) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Arrow - TU Dublin (Technological University Dublin)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, large language models, academic integrity, generative AI in education, artificial intelligence in higher education
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
