Difference between revisions of "Template:Article of the week"

From LIMSWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Updated article of the week text.)
(Updated article of the week text)
(296 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''"[[Journal:Global data quality assessment and the situated nature of “best” research practices in biology|Global data quality assessment and the situated nature of “best” research practices in biology]]"'''
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Fig1 Niszczota EconBusRev23 9-2.png|240px]]</div>
'''"[[Journal:Judgements of research co-created by generative AI: Experimental evidence|Judgements of research co-created by generative AI: Experimental evidence]]"'''


This paper reflects on the relation between international debates around data quality assessment and the diversity characterizing research practices, goals and environments within the life sciences. Since the emergence of molecular approaches, many biologists have focused their research, and related methods and instruments for data production, on the study of genes and genomes. While this trend is now shifting, prominent institutions and companies with stakes in molecular biology continue to set standards for what counts as "good science" worldwide, resulting in the use of specific data production technologies as proxy for assessing data quality. This is problematic considering (1) the variability in research cultures, goals and the very characteristics of biological systems, which can give rise to countless different approaches to knowledge production; and (2) the existence of research environments that produce high-quality, significant datasets despite not availing themselves of the latest technologies. Ethnographic research carried out in such environments evidences a widespread fear among researchers that providing extensive information about their experimental set-up will affect the perceived quality of their data, making their findings vulnerable to criticisms by better-resourced peers. These fears can make scientists resistant to sharing data or describing their provenance. ('''[[Journal:Global data quality assessment and the situated nature of “best” research practices in biology|Full article...]]''')<br />
The introduction of [[ChatGPT]] has fuelled a public debate on the appropriateness of using generative [[artificial intelligence]] (AI) ([[large language model]]s or LLMs) in work, including a debate on how they might be used (and abused) by researchers. In the current work, we test whether delegating parts of the research process to LLMs leads people to distrust researchers and devalues their scientific work. Participants (''N'' = 402) considered a researcher who delegates elements of the research process to a PhD student or LLM and rated three aspects of such delegation. Firstly, they rated whether it is morally appropriate to do so. Secondly, they judged whether—after deciding to delegate the research process—they would trust the scientist (who decided to delegate) to oversee future projects ... ('''[[Journal:Judgements of research co-created by generative AI: Experimental evidence|Full article...]]''')<br />
<br />
''Recently featured'':
''Recently featured'':  
{{flowlist |
: ▪ [[Journal:Neuroimaging, genetics, and clinical data sharing in Python using the CubicWeb framework|Neuroimaging, genetics, and clinical data sharing in Python using the CubicWeb framework]]
* [[Journal:Geochemical biodegraded oil classification using a machine learning approach|Geochemical biodegraded oil classification using a machine learning approach]]
: ▪ [[Journal:Analyzing the field of bioinformatics with the multi-faceted topic modeling technique|Analyzing the field of bioinformatics with the multi-faceted topic modeling technique]]
* [[Journal:Knowledge of internal quality control for laboratory tests among laboratory personnel working in a biochemistry department of a tertiary care center: A descriptive cross-sectional study|Knowledge of internal quality control for laboratory tests among laboratory personnel working in a biochemistry department of a tertiary care center: A descriptive cross-sectional study]]
: ▪ [[Journal:Intervene: A tool for intersection and visualization of multiple gene or genomic region sets|Intervene: A tool for intersection and visualization of multiple gene or genomic region sets]]
* [[Journal:Sigma metrics as a valuable tool for effective analytical performance and quality control planning in the clinical laboratory: A retrospective study|Sigma metrics as a valuable tool for effective analytical performance and quality control planning in the clinical laboratory: A retrospective study]]
}}

Revision as of 15:26, 20 May 2024

Fig1 Niszczota EconBusRev23 9-2.png

"Judgements of research co-created by generative AI: Experimental evidence"

The introduction of ChatGPT has fuelled a public debate on the appropriateness of using generative artificial intelligence (AI) (large language models or LLMs) in work, including a debate on how they might be used (and abused) by researchers. In the current work, we test whether delegating parts of the research process to LLMs leads people to distrust researchers and devalues their scientific work. Participants (N = 402) considered a researcher who delegates elements of the research process to a PhD student or LLM and rated three aspects of such delegation. Firstly, they rated whether it is morally appropriate to do so. Secondly, they judged whether—after deciding to delegate the research process—they would trust the scientist (who decided to delegate) to oversee future projects ... (Full article...)
Recently featured:

Retrieved from "https://www.limswiki.org/index.php?title=Template:Article_of_the_week&oldid=63646"