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)
 
(7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Fig1 Scroggie DigDisc2023 2.gif|240px]]</div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Fig1 Niszczota EconBusRev23 9-2.png|240px]]</div>
'''"[[Journal:GitHub as an open electronic laboratory notebook for real-time sharing of knowledge and collaboration|GitHub as an open electronic laboratory notebook for real-time sharing of knowledge and collaboration]]"'''
'''"[[Journal:Judgements of research co-created by generative AI: Experimental evidence|Judgements of research co-created by generative AI: Experimental evidence]]"'''


[[Electronic laboratory notebook]]s (ELNs) have expanded the utility of the paper [[laboratory notebook]] beyond that of a simple record keeping tool. Open ELNs offer additional benefits to the scientific community, including increased transparency, reproducibility, and [[Data integrity|integrity]]. A key element underpinning these benefits is facile and expedient knowledge sharing which aids communication and collaboration. In previous projects, we have used [[LabTrove]] and [[LabArchives, LLC|LabArchives]] as open ELNs, in partnership with GitHub (an open-source web-based platform originally developed for collaborative coding) for communication and discussion. Here we present our personal experiences using GitHub as the central platform for many aspects of the scientific process ... ('''[[Journal:GitHub as an open electronic laboratory notebook for real-time sharing of knowledge and collaboration|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 />
''Recently featured'':
''Recently featured'':
{{flowlist |
{{flowlist |
* [[Journal:SODAR: Managing multiomics study data and metadata|SODAR: Managing multiomics study data and metadata]]
* [[Journal:Geochemical biodegraded oil classification using a machine learning approach|Geochemical biodegraded oil classification using a machine learning approach]]
* [[Journal:Benefits of information technology in healthcare: Artificial intelligence, internet of things, and personal health records|Benefits of information technology in healthcare: Artificial intelligence, internet of things, and personal health records]]
* [[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:A quality assurance discrimination tool for the evaluation of satellite laboratory practice excellence in the context of European regulatory meat inspection for Trichinella spp.|A quality assurance discrimination tool for the evaluation of satellite laboratory practice excellence in the context of European regulatory meat inspection for ''Trichinella spp.'']]
* [[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]]
}}
}}

Latest 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: