Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Lund, B.D."
  • × type_ss:"a"
  1. Lund, B.D.; Wang, T.; Mannuru, N.R.; Nie, B.; Shimray, S.; Wang, Z.: ChatGPT and a new academic reality : artificial Intelligence-written research papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing (2023) 0.00 
    0.002269176 = product of:
  0.004538352 = sum of:
    0.004538352 = product of:
      0.009076704 = sum of:
        0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009076704 = score(doc=943,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 943, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=943)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article discusses OpenAI's ChatGPT, a generative pre-trained transformer, which uses natural language processing to fulfill text-based user requests (i.e., a "chatbot"). The history and principles behind ChatGPT and similar models are discussed. This technology is then discussed in relation to its potential impact on academia and scholarly research and publishing. ChatGPT is seen as a potential model for the automated preparation of essays and other types of scholarly manuscripts. Potential ethical issues that could arise with the emergence of large language models like GPT-3, the underlying technology behind ChatGPT, and its usage by academics and researchers, are discussed and situated within the context of broader advancements in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and natural language processing for research and scholarly publishing.
    Type
    a
  2. Lund, B.D.; Agbaji, D.A.: What scheme do we prefer? : an examination of preference between Library of Congress and Dewey Decimal Classification among U.S.-based academic library employees (2018) 0.00 
    0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 4301) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=4301,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 4301, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4301)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Though several studies have been published on the topic of reclassification of academic library collections over the past eight decades since it first gained popularity, none have explored the preferences of academic library employees toward classification schemes beyond a merely superficial level. The preferences of library employees must serve some role in organizational decision-making. By distributing a mixed-methods survey to academic library employees across the United States, the researchers in the present study provide insight into employee preferences. The findings of the study may provide insight into library trends and the future of library classification schemes.
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Themes