1,720,952 research outputs found
The Human and Machine: Google, Google Docs, Grammarly, Quillbot, OpenAI, and OpenAIChatGPT Duration: 22:76:00 / 4552 words1
No full textThis paper is a methodological exploration of human-AI collaboration in academic writing and publishing. Using critical autoethnography, the author engages in a process of becoming with the technologies and, because of this, shows us ways of embodying change. The narrative weaves together the mutually influential relationship between personal experience, the happenings of culture, and emerging AI technology. It is a tracing of practice, a way of thinking with and through—asking questions about and acting on—these experiences and happenings. In the context of communication futures, theory is not a static body of knowledge or an autonomous set of ideas, objects, or practices. Instead, theorizing is an ongoing, fluid process that links the concrete and the abstract, thinking and acting, aesthetics and criticism. (Holman Jones 2016, 229)
Credited solely to the author, this piece provides a case study of academic writing developed with the unwavering assistance of Artificial Intelligence (AI). What remains hidden from the reader is the back-and-forth interaction between the author and the AI assistant—these interactions typically involve the author asking the machine to comment on fluency, so that the author can then make micro-adjustments to things such as spelling, grammar, and sentence structure. On occasion, it involves learning about paraphrasing by observing how the AI paraphrases. In the final manuscript, this level of interaction is not visible because it would disrupt the reader\u27s flow and comprehension, as well as obscure the author\u27s intent. There are instances, however, where the dialogue is less entangled, which allows the author to italicize their prompts to the machine and the machine\u27s responses to be highlighted. In addition to AI technologies, uncertainty is engaged with as ‘generative technology’ for imagination, experience, and action. (Akama, Pink, and Sumartojo 2018, 46) By embracing both uncertainty and AI in practice, the author seeks to better understand how emerging technologies might serve to support, limit, and enhance the author’s ability to write about their practice.
This article hypothesizes that communication futures will involve collaboration between humans and human-AI technologies and that the significance of critical thinking and creativity will remain pertinent. It also proposes that to produce thoughtful, contextually appropriate, and non-biased outcomes, we must embrace collaborative mindsets and adopt respectful, participatory, inclusive, and diverse processes that build capability.
 
The Human and Machine, 2022-23: Open AI, ChatGPT, Quillbot, Grammarly, Google, Google Docs & humans*
No full textWith the release of generative text and image-based tools like Midjourney and ChatGPT in 2022, discussions about artifical intelligence (AI) and its impact on design, design education, and research have moved from the periphery to the forefront. These powerful tools, often open-access beta versions, have transformed speculative dialogue into a present reality. Their sophisticated and intuitive user interfaces facilitate the speedy and profi-cient generation of text, and image-based content, enabling designers, educators, and learners to simultaneously discover the dangers and possi-bilities of generative AI technologies. To explore the unique powers of both generative AI and human cognition, the author uses autoethnography, AI writing assistants, and generative AI technology to develop a story of practice. The narrative is informed by, and ultimately supports the scholarly literature that emphasizes the need for humans to take responsibility for the equitable and ethical use of AI. This includes initiating and guiding AI systems, critically evaluating their responses, and reformulating, editing, and verifying outputs to address factual inaccuracies, misleading informa-tion, or offensive and biased content
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe have done our best to complete the author checklist relating to the use of animals in the hut study. Note that the objective for the hut study was to evaluate the IRS treatment applications for residual efficacy against Anopheles mosquitoes, including the local An. coluzzii mosquito population. Cows were only used to attract mosquitoes into the huts and no tests were carried out directly on the cows. The author checklist is intended for use with studies where experiments are carried out on animals, which is why we have had such difficulty in completing this for the hut study, as many of the questions do not relate to how the cows were used
Author-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.
No full textAuthor-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.</p
- …
