The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 1 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Impact of ChatGPT on Learning Motivation: Teachers and Students' Voices
Open accessAbstract
Motivation drives most human activities, including foreign language learning, and it is affected by several intrinsic and extrinsic factors. This study investigated how ChatGPT impacts learning English. A quantitative research design was used to collect data from 80 teachers and students who had access to the ChatGPT in its very beginning phase in early 2023. The sample, selected in a non-probability sampling technique, responded to an online questionnaire. Findings showed that ChatGPT generally motivates learners to develop reading and writing skills. The respondents had neutral attitudes towards the effect of ChatGPT on developing listening and speaking skills. The findings suggest that ChatGPT-based teaching is motivational. ChatGPT should be used as a learning tool instead of fearing its negative impacts, which require further detailed investigations. Further research is required to explore more advantages of ChatGPT for other aspects of the language and illuminate its negative effects to help educators reduce them in English programs.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This quantitative survey of 80 English teachers and students in early 2023 found that ChatGPT was generally perceived to motivate learners to develop reading and writing skills, while attitudes toward listening and speaking were neutral. It reports positive perceptions of ChatGPT’s motivational effects and significant differences by teaching experience for listening and interest.
Key findings
- Participants thought ChatGPT could motivate EFL learners to develop reading (M = 4.02, SD = 1.28) and writing (M = 3.92, SD = 1.016), but showed neutral attitudes toward listening (M = 3.32, SD = 1.28) and speaking (M = 3.25, SD = 1.28).
- For micro skills, participants favored motivation to learn grammar (M = 3.9, SD = 0.9648) and vocabulary (M = 4.45).
- Motivation-type items showed positive views: independent learning (M = 4.025, SD = 0.8263), self-confidence (M = 3.97, SD = 0.8263), fun/enjoyment (M = 4, SD = 0.9546), interest (M = 3.55), interaction (M = 3.8, SD = 0.9328), and eagerness to get a job (M = 4, SD = 0.8714).
- ANOVA found significant differences among high experience, low experience, and students for listening (F = 4.57817, Sig. = 0.0132231) and interest in learning (F = 8.04608, Sig. = 0.00067103); Tukey showed high-experience participants differed from low-experience participants on listening, and high-experience participants differed from both low-experience and student participants on interest.
Methods
- Quantitative design using an online questionnaire distributed via email and WhatsApp to 80 English language students and instructors selected by non-probability sampling, conducted about two months after ChatGPT launched in early 2023.
- Instrument was a five-point Likert scale questionnaire with two sections: six statements on micro and macro language skills, and six statements on motivation types; it was reviewed by expert referees in applied linguistics and modified.
- Data were analyzed with SPSS version 23 using descriptive and inferential statistics, including validity and reliability tests and ANOVA; Tukey HSD post hoc tests were used for multiple comparisons.
Limitations
- The paper states a limitation: “the lack of supportive qualitative data that would have enriched the investigation.”
- Evident from the text: the sample was non-probability and relatively small (80), and the study relies on self-reported perceptions rather than direct measures of learning or motivation outcomes.
- Evident from the text: data were collected only in the early phase of ChatGPT in 2023, and some reported values are inconsistent between the narrative and tables (e.g., interest SD differs).
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 1 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Clearly, the analysis of the attitude questionnaire showed that most of the educators and ELT practitioners agreed on the positive effect of ChatGPT on motivating learners.”
§ Impact of ChatGPT on Learning Motivation: Teachers and Students' Voices > Results and Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“get fun and enjoyment (M 4, SD 0.9546)”
§ Impact of ChatGPT on Learning Motivation: Teachers and Students' Voices > Results and Discussion
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“gain self-confidence (M3.97,SD 0.8263)”
§ Impact of ChatGPT on Learning Motivation: Teachers and Students' Voices > Results and Discussion
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“to manage their learning independently (M4.025,SD 0.8263)”
§ Impact of ChatGPT on Learning Motivation: Teachers and Students' Voices > Results and Discussion
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table 3 shows that there are significant differences among the three levels of teaching experience (high experience, low experience and students) regarding their attitudes toward the effect of ChatGPT on motivating learners to develop their listening and creating interest in learning English.”
§ Impact of ChatGPT on Learning Motivation: Teachers and Students' Voices > Results and Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“interactive with speakers of the language (M 3.8, SD 0.9328)”
§ Impact of ChatGPT on Learning Motivation: Teachers and Students' Voices > Results and Discussion
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Findings showed that ChatGPT generally motivates learners to develop reading and writing skills.”
- Also stated in: § Results and Discussion · hedged
“Most of the participants thought that using ChatGPT could motivate EFL learners to develop their reading and writing skills with a (Mean 4.02, SD 1.28 and mean 3.92, SD 1.016) respectively.”
- Also stated in: § Results and Discussion · plain
“It motivates students to read and write more than other skills.”
§ Impact of ChatGPT on Learning Motivation: Teachers and Students' Voices > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: The sample of 80 teachers and students is representative of English language teachers and students generally.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reported attitudes and perceptions accurately reflect ChatGPT's actual impact on learning motivation.
- Also stated in: § Results and Discussion · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The respondents had neutral attitudes towards the effect of ChatGPT on developing listening and speaking skills.”
- Also stated in: § Results and Discussion · plain
“On the other hand, most participants showed a neutral attitude towards the effect of ChatGPT on developing listening and speaking skills with a mean and standard deviation of (M.3.32, SD 1.28 and M. 3.25, SD 1.28) respectively.”
§ Impact of ChatGPT on Learning Motivation: Teachers and Students' Voices > Abstract
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § Results and Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table 1 shows a Mean of 3.9 and SD.0.9648 in favour of motivation to learn grammar and a Mean of 4.45 and SD 6731 to learn vocabulary.”
§ Impact of ChatGPT on Learning Motivation: Teachers and Students' Voices > Results and Discussion
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table 3 shows that there are significant differences among the three levels of teaching experience (high experience, low experience and students) regarding their attitudes toward the effect of ChatGPT on motivating learners to develop their listening and creating interest in learning English.”
§ Impact of ChatGPT on Learning Motivation: Teachers and Students' Voices > Results and Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
- It may state two separate claims as one. 6
- Probably not a substantial claim. 4
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“though all participants agreed on the positive effect of ChatGPT on creating interest within learners, there were significant differences between high and low experience from one side and high and students from another.”
§ Impact of ChatGPT on Learning Motivation: Teachers and Students' Voices > Results and Discussion
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It revealed that the attitude of high experience significantly differed from low experience but no difference between high and students.”
§ Impact of ChatGPT on Learning Motivation: Teachers and Students' Voices > Results and Discussion
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A limitation that should be stated is the lack of supportive qualitative data that would have enriched the investigation.”
§ Impact of ChatGPT on Learning Motivation: Teachers and Students' Voices > Conclusion
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It increases their intrinsic, extrinsic and autonomous motivation.”
§ Impact of ChatGPT on Learning Motivation: Teachers and Students' Voices > Results and Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The sample of 80 teachers and students is representative of English language teachers and students generally.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reported attitudes and perceptions accurately reflect ChatGPT's actual impact on learning motivation.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The SPSS (version 23) was used to operate descriptive and inferential statistical tests, including the validity and reliability of the questionnaire and the collected data.”
§ Impact of ChatGPT on Learning Motivation: Teachers and Students' Voices > Data Collection & Analysis
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The questionnaire was sent to expert referees in applied linguistics to be reviewed and based on their comments and suggestions, and the questionnaire was modified.”
§ Impact of ChatGPT on Learning Motivation: Teachers and Students' Voices > Instrument
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It should not be taken for granted because it is not complete and final and may contain incorrect output that always requires human intervention.”
§ Impact of ChatGPT on Learning Motivation: Teachers and Students' Voices > Results and Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jillian et al., 2023
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The sample of 80 teachers and students is representative of English language teachers and students generally.
“The sample, selected in a non-probability sampling technique, responded to an online questionnaire.”
“The participants of this study were all students and instructors of the English language, whose total number was 80.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Participants' self-reported attitudes and perceptions accurately reflect ChatGPT's actual impact on learning motivation.
“This study investigated how ChatGPT impacts learning English.”
“The questionnaire included six statements about the participants' views on whether ChatGPT motivates students to learn micro language skills (vocabulary and grammar) and macro language skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing).”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Interaction mean differs from Table 2
MinorThe results text gives a mean of 3.8 for interaction, but Table 2 gives 3.875, which rounds to 3.9 at one decimal place.
“interactive with speakers of the language (M 3.8, SD 0.9328)”
“| Extrinsic | Interaction with other people | 80 | 3.875 | 0.932874 |”
Interest-in-learning standard deviation differs from Table 2
MinorThe results text reports an SD of 0.9328 for interest in learning English, whereas Table 2 reports 1.123962 for that item.
“create interest (M 3.55, SD 0.9328)”
“| | Interest in learning English | 80 | 3.55 | 1.123962 |”
Citations
Cites
Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches
Lewis, S. (2015) · Health Promotion Practice · doi:10.1177/1524839915580941 · Cited by 22,105
(2017) · Cited by 16,036
ChatGPT for Good? On Opportunities and Challenges of Large Language Models for Education
Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., et al. (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/5er8f · Cited by 7,552
ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., et al. (2023) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 · Cited by 7,326
Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory.
Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.70.4.767 · Cited by 1,774
ChatGPT User Experience: Implications for Education
Zhai, X. (2023) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4312418 · Cited by 935
Conditions for Classroom Technology Innovations
Zhao, Y., Pugh, K. J., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. L. (2002) · Teachers College Record The Voice of Scholarship in Education · doi:10.1111/1467-9620.00170 · Cited by 861
Wang, J. H.-Y., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004) · Reading Research Quarterly · doi:10.1598/rrq.39.2.2 · Cited by 741
Ryan, R. M., Rigby, S., & King, K. (1993) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.65.3.586 · Cited by 436
OpenAI ChatGPT Generated Literature Review: Digital Twin in Healthcare
Aydın, Ö., & Karaarslan, E. (2022) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4308687 · Cited by 391
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–335 of 335
Utilizing ChatGPT in English Language Learning: Insights from EFL Students’ Experiences
Pham, A. N. M., & Bui, N. A. (2025) · International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Education (WAIE) · doi:10.1109/waie67422.2025.11381253
AI-Powered Learning: Assessing ChatGPT’s Influence on Student Engagement and Autonomy
Rane, C., Patil, L. K., Bhanap, S., & Kulkarni, R. (2026) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-17834-3_22
When AI Moves Into the Classroom
Jackaria, P. M., Campo, C. J. L., Sukarno, A. A., Jackaria, T. A., & Gapul, A.-A. A. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-4521-5.ch018
ChatGPT im DaF-Unterricht: Potenziale und Grenzen eines KI-gestützten Sprachtools
YALÇIN, C. (2026) · Buca eğitim fakültesi dergisi (Online)/Buca Eğitim Fakültesi dergisi · doi:10.53444/deubefd.1731850
Ethical Use of ChatGPT and Critic-AI in Academic Writing and ResearchPreprint
Yaprak, Z. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6539730
Hu, W.-C. (2026) · Journal of College Reading and Learning · doi:10.1080/10790195.2026.2656248 · Cited by 1
EFL Postgraduate Students’ Attitudes Toward Using ChatGPT in Research Writing
Tamayo, M. R., Llerena, C. L. Á., & Cajas, D. (2026) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-20729-6_12
Kadhim, S. N., & Hameed, H. H. (2026) · European Journal of Contemporary Education and E-Learning · doi:10.59324/ejceel.2026.4(3).01
Teacher-Led Innovations with Generative AI: A Case Study of Australian Teachers
Blundell, C. N., Mukherjee, M. M., & Nykvist, S. S. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-12174-5_9
Design and Task Scaffolds for ChatGPT-Enhanced PBL
Deng, Y. (2026) · Springer briefs in education · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-8259-4_2
Teacher AI Literacy and Student Motivation
Duran, V., & Çelık, F. (2026) · Springer briefs in education · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-8259-4_3
Pham, A. N. M. (2026) · International Conference on Educational and Information Technology · doi:10.1109/iceit68991.2026.11521735
عودة, م. خ. م. (2026) · مجلة العلوم التربوية و الدراسات الإنسانية · doi:10.55074/awx80506
Girgin, Ç. (2026) · Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1155/hbe2/6243455 · Cited by 2
Çimen, Y. A., & BOLATLI, G. (2026) · Frontiers in Physiology · doi:10.3389/fphys.2026.1816470
Büyüksaraç, Z. (2026) · Buca eğitim fakültesi dergisi (Online)/Buca Eğitim Fakültesi dergisi · doi:10.53444/deubefd.1870716
The Use of AI-Generated Feedback in an Indonesian EFL Writing Class: Student PerceptionsPreprint
Arifin, M. A., & Salsbury, T. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6950560
Jamil, B., Shaoan, M. M. R., Zeyuan, P. Y., Irfan, S., Arif, M. N., & Maruf, G. A. A. H. (2026) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440261431568 · Cited by 7
A Case Study on Artificial Intelligence in University Leadership at a Malaysian Institution
Omar, M. K., Maslan, N. A., Kuen, Y. P., Arifin, A. A. R. @., Balakrishnan, J. K., & Ma, R. (2026) · The Pertanika Journal of Learning Pedagogy and Educational Leadership · doi:10.47836/pjlpel.2.1.16
Wang, Y., Roslan, S. B., & Taresh, S. M. (2026) · The Pertanika Journal of Learning Pedagogy and Educational Leadership · doi:10.47836/pjlpel.2.1.11
Al-Sofi, B. B. M. A. (2026) · East European Journal of Psycholinguistics · doi:10.29038/eejpl.2026.13.1.al-s
Chen, H., & Chen, C.-I. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-29653-5_37
AI-Generated Popular Culture Visuals, Representation, and Motivation
Aslan, K., & NAZLI, K. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-7749-0.ch009
Bibliometric Mapping of ChatGPT Use in Language Education: Evolution, Trends, and Future Directions
Topal, İ. H. (2026) · Research Synthesis in Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1080/29984475.2026.2709139
Enhancing Science Simulation-Based Learning with Dialogic Feedback from Generative AI Agents
Wen, C., Chu, Y.-S., Hsu, C.-C., Chao, P.-Y., Chen, Y.-S., Chang, C. H., Hwang, F.-K., & Liu, C. (2026) · Journal of Science Education and Technology · doi:10.1007/s10956-025-10290-5
The Use of ChatGPT Chatbot in Enhancing Writing Skills of ESL Students
Yaprak, Z. (2026) · Journal of Language Research · doi:10.51726/jlr.1879060
Zamanifard, S., Goudarzi, S., Soleimani, M., & Robb, A. C. (2026) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-026-01991-z
Duțu, A., Ives, B., Georgescu, B.-G., Dumitru, I., & Ferretti, S. (2026) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-33581-4_24
ChatGPT for interdisciplinary learning: Does it equally benefit STEM and non-STEM students
Zhu, G., Fan, X., Hou, C., Zhong, T., Zhu, W., SEOW, P. S. K., Chen, S. A., Rajalingam, P., Low, K. Y., & Tan, L. P. (2026) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2026.100681
Alqaed, M. A. (2026) · International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.4018/ijcallt.423452
Strategies to enhance resilience among students in higher education: A critical narrative review
Gabriel, J. (2026) · Educational Research and Reviews · doi:10.5897/err2026.4536
Investigating ESL University Teachers’ Views on the role of ChatGPT in English Teaching and LearningPreprint
Ahmed, K., Nusrat, A., Ali, S. W., Shavkatovna, T. D., Qadeer, A., Ashraf, R. S., & Jamil, N. K. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10775474/v1
Responsible Artificial Intelligence and Ethical Data Governance
Singh, T. M., Dadireddy, M. K. R., Anisha, P. R., Zubair, R., Fatima, Q., & Paranthaman, J. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-2600-2518-5.ch003
Wang, J., Ismail, H. H., & Mansor, A. Z. (2026) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-36012-0_13
Chai, S., Zhu, G., He, Z., Zhou, F., Wu, H., & Tongwu, J. (2026) · Asia Pacific Journal of Education · doi:10.1080/02188791.2026.2751966
Metadata
- Authors
- Ali, J. K. M., Shamsan, M. A. A., Hezam, T. A., & Mohammed, A. A. Q.
- Affiliations
- University of Bisha (SA)
- Taiz University (YE)
- University of Kerala (IN)
- Venue
- Journal of English Studies in Arabia Felix
- Publisher
- Arabia Felix Academy
- Published
- 2023-03-07
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 41-49
- ISSN
- 2957-515X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4323568782
- Semantic Scholar
- ede5e50fdf7c5006e7259b98b28934012a0d0894
- Cited by
- 335
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 56 · 2025: 115 · 2024: 118 · 2023: 46
- FWCI
- 78.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of English Studies in Arabia Felix (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Education › English Language Learning and Teaching
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, student motivation, English as a foreign language, reading and writing skills, listening and speaking skills, teacher and student attitudes, AI-assisted language learning
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
