# data[].attributes.headline
Free deep research from perplexity (5 per day)

# data[].attributes.subject
Free deep research from perplexity (5 per day)

# data[].attributes.body
heavyweight but there's a helpful index to dip into specific sections

# data[].attributes.body
Very good AI intro

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to Main Content

Welcome to this Library guide on AI and Chat GPT.

This guide has been designed to introduce students to artifical inteligence (AI), Generative AI and the ethical use of such tools in academia.

AI, Ethics and Academia

It's a good place to start, but a terrible place to finish!

AI tools can be useful in supporting your learning and writing at University but you need to be clear on how and when they should be used.

See below some questions and answers which help clarify the use of AI.

Navigation

Please use the pages on the left to select the area and topic you are interested in.

Disclaimer - The Library team are not experts in AI.

Contact us

# data[].attributes.headline
Digitally enhanced education seminars - lots on AI

# data[].attributes.subject
Digitally enhanced education seminars - lots on AI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to the University of Kent's Digitally Enhanced Education webinars! These webinars are an opportunity to share examples amongst colleagues when using digital technologies for teaching. We hope that you will find some great ideas.

# data[].attributes.headline
Evaluation of AI research tools (Nov 2024)

# data[].attributes.subject
Evaluation of AI research tools (Nov 2024)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
FEATURE - An Evaluation of Cutting-Edge AI Research Tools Using the REACT Framework

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As AI continues to revolutionize academic research, librarians must stay informed about the latest AI-powered tools and their potential applications. This article explores a range of cutting-edge AI research tools, evaluating their key features, benefits, and drawbacks using the REACT framework.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many students now use AI technologies like DeepL Translator, ChatGPT, and Grammarly. MSc International Development and Humanitarian Emergencies student, Francesca Feruglio explores how ID students use these tools, their perspectives on them, and a view on the benefits these tools may have for an academic institution such as LSE.

In today's digital era, university students are wholeheartedly embracing the power of AI technologies to supercharge their academic journey. Grammarly polishes their writing with real-time grammar and spelling suggestions, while ChatGPT acts as their trusted virtual brainstorming buddy. DeepL translator effortlessly bridges language gaps, promoting a rich exchange of knowledge among diverse cultures. Quillbot empowers students to elevate their writing fluency and craft stellar essays. However, it's vital to tread cautiously amidst the AI wave. Excessive reliance on these tools can potentially dull critical thinking and problem-solving abilities, stifling the emergence of fresh and original ideas. Moreover, the fallibility of AI algorithms can lead to inaccuracies and biases, generating confusion instead of clarity. Additionally, safeguarding data privacy and security is an ongoing concern. Students must strive for equilibrium, harnessing the benefits of AI while nurturing independent thinking skills, ensuring a well-rounded and enriching academic experience.

By the way, ChatGPT wrote the paragraph you just read, not me. Would I be able to produce something like this? Yes, probably. In 3 seconds, though? Very unlikely. The temptation to delegate tasks to AI technologies is what makes them not having an excellent reputation in the Academia. However, are our concerns well reposit or are we only afraid of what we don't know yet? Perhaps we can answer this question by learning more about how exactly LSE ID students are using AI technology, and what kind of effects they find it has on their lives. So, I conducted a poll among my colleagues, and I'll try to depict the situation using their responses and my own experience.

The adoption of AI technologies among ID students is uneven, to start with. Not simply in terms of the technology chosen, but also in terms of how often they are used. The popularity of AIs varies: from the ardent admirer to the sporadic but somewhat suspicious user to the fiercely anti-AI. The ID department properly captures the range of viewpoints present in larger society.

True is to say that the perception of AI tools that enhance writing, like Grammarly, DeepL Translator, or Quillbot, is much less negative than that of ChatGPT, an advanced language model designed to generate human-like text responses. The use of AI technologies that enhance writing abilities may be a powerful tool for bridging the achievement gap at institutions like LSE, where over 70% of students are international and many of them undoubtedly do not speak English as a first language. Indeed, overseas students often find themselves at a disadvantage due to their inability to communicate well in English, and considering the typical duration of a Master's degree (1 year), it may be challenging to learn rapidly enough to perfectly perform during the LT examinations. Then, ID students benefit from the accurate translations provided by DeepL Translator, an AI-powered translator, in order to better grasp challenging chapters. Or they use Quillbot to improve the quality of their own original writing, which results in more natural-sounding, native-English-like compositions. Moreover, the 90% of the respondents uses Grammarly, that plays the role of an always available proof-reader. These AI technologies might all aid in removing barriers and hurdles to a fair assessment of ID student work, and they are widely positively perceived by students. Could this discourage students from learning English to the highest level? It may, however, shouldn't the learning of a second language be a personal choice? And then, isn't the acquirement of English proficiency a student's own responsibility?

For ChatGPT, the case is different. Despite a generally favourable influence on the academic experience, ChatGPT use among ID LSE students is not as widespread as may be expected, and there are contrasting feedbacks on its adoption. ChatGPT, and similarly Bard, have applications that go well beyond linguistic enhancement. Students consult them for topic clarification, ideas for essay-writing prompts, code improvements, and comments on their own projects. ChatGPT often edits my emails, gives me suggestions on the steps to take to arrive at desired outcomes. Sometimes it may even give me some life hacks. A respondent defined ChatGPT as a co-worker, a form of always-available colleague, and it seems a suitable description to me. ChatGPT is a ready-to-use interface to utilise when you are having trouble solving a problem and are not getting the response you were hoping for or any response at all. It doesn't replace human interaction, but it could help, particularly at busy periods, holidays, or times of day when an ordinary academic support is not running. Where, therefore, is the virtue of waiting? The inventiveness and originality sparked by the wait for responses and the emptiness of working alone on something? It's a good query, but it naturally occurs to me to follow it up with another question: Are we in a scholastic system that celebrates the waiting, that allows everyone the time they require to reflect without rushing, where deadlines are less strict and the enjoyment of the intellectual exercise takes precedence over the performance?

To let ChatGPT concluding this blog: As AI technologies revolutionize academic support, students find themselves at a crossroads of potential and caution. Embracing AI's language-enhancing tools unlocks newfound fluency and knowledge exchange. However, the allure of quick solutions may challenge the pursuit of true ingenuity and independent thinking. While AI can be a reliable co-worker, supplementing human efforts, we must remember the virtue of patience and reflection in the quest for originality. As we navigate this evolving landscape, let us celebrate the balance between AI's aid and the essence of human creativity, nurturing a learning environment where inspiration flourishes and ideas thrive.
The views expressed in this post are those of the author and do not reflect those of the International Development LSE blog or the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Image credit: LSE

About the author

Posted In: Digitalisation and ICT | Student Experience | Topical and Comment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
From virtual co-workers to eloquence in writing: AI Tools in ID student's lives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
MSc International Development and Humanitarian Emergencies student, Francesca Feruglio explores how ID students use these tools, their perspectives on them, and a view on the benefits these tools may have for an academic institution as LSE.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
LibrariesAIandTheMessyMiddle .pdf (11.12 MB) View file This item contains files with download restrictions

LibrariesAIandTheMessyMiddle .pptx (41.45 MB) View file This item contains files with download restrictions

Switch View Switch between different file views

Thumbnail view List view File view

2 files

Fullscreen

This presentations discusses a variety of issues around AI and its adoption in libraries.

History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This presentations discusses a variety of issues around AI and its adoption in libraries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A team of librarians studied new tools for creating metadata

Posted on April 12, 2023 in Blog Posts

Sensitive to the ways the ways librarians might harness AI technologies to improve services, we wanted to share another chapter from Sandy Hervieux and Amanda Wheatley's edited collection, The Rise of AI: Implications and Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Academic Libraries (ACRL, 2022). Written by Charlie Harper, Anne Kumer, Shelby Stuart, and Evan Meszaros and licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0, this chapter, "AI-Informed Approaches to Metadata Tagging for Improved Resource Discovery," outlines how machine-learning software can improve resource discoverability and accessibility, using a sample of electronic dissertations and theses.

Introduction

Academic and cultural institutions are grappling with problems of how to organize, label, and search disparate bodies of texts. As aggregators, preservers, and disseminators of substantial repositories of digital texts, research libraries are naturally situated at the heart of these problems. This chapter explores how unsupervised machine learning may be used to capture and simplify the complexity and nuances of text. Traditional approaches to improving discoverability and accessibility of text through metadata and controlled vocabularies have time-tested strengths. As the volume of digital data explodes, the obstacles and limitations of traditional approaches become more pronounced, and machine learning "show(s) the potential to create efficiencies that smooth the path to access, enhancing description and expanding forms of discovery along the way." ¹ In light of the need for new approaches to metadata generation to facilitate discovery, the authors look at Doc2Vec and topic modelling with Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) to explore their utility as assistive tools for authors, librarians, and readers. The authors apply the two approaches to a corpus of electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs) completed at Ohio universities and colleges. ²

Current Issues in Metadata and Discovery

Searchability is one of the greatest advantages that online documents have over their print counterparts, and surveys show that users view this as a vital feature when asked about using e-resources over print. ³ Metadata quality influences the searchability and the discoverability of e-resources. Research databases and discovery layers rely on proprietary algorithms to generate and order results in response to the user's query. Relevance ranking algorithms may compare the query to metadata fields such as subject headings, publication titles, abstracts, and (sometimes) full text in order to determine the results. Therefore, search engines will return resources with greater effectiveness and precision when they have complete metadata and a useful set of subject headings. High-quality metadata is also a key component in ensuring that the most relevant documents appear at the top of the result set, where the user is more likely to find them. ⁴

Studies by Tina Gross and her colleagues have examined the efficacy of controlled vocabularies for resource discovery. They established that, whether or not a user sees them, the existence of controlled vocabulary metadata, which depends on carefully assigned subject headings, generally contributes to up to one-third more positive search results than if that metadata was not there. ⁵ The research landscape, however, has changed dramatically due to Google's powerful influence, and keyword searching has exploded in popularity. The millions of documents that are commonly returned by keyword searches may overwhelm the user, while subject searches are able to return smaller sets of documents that are often more tailored to a user's query. Concurrently, several LIS scholars find that unregulated author-generated keywords enhance searches if they are employed in addition to subject headings from widely used controlled vocabularies assigned by librarians. ⁶

The most widely used library-controlled vocabulary, the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), is maintained on the principle of literary warrant. ⁷ This has historically meant that only topics published in books warrant inclusion in the vocabulary's authorized headings lists. Vocabularies like the LCSH are slow to add new, potentially dubious terminology, essentially "controlling" its terms by applying parameters for use. This principle neglects formats, such as articles and dissertations, where scholarship is typically first published. ⁸ A contrasting principle is user warrant, which is based on user preference, need, and search patterns. Leaving out the specialized knowledge of a document's author potentially lessens discoverability because the LCSH is slow to include new specialized subject terminology. ANSI/NISO standards present literary and user warrant as complementary and equally important for search and discovery. ⁹ Author-generated keywords may yield many irrelevant search results, which the restriction of a controlled vocabulary mitigates. Conversely, a controlled vocabulary imposes conservatism in the face of shifting cultural standards, which is balanced by author-generated keywords.

ETD and Subject Metadata

For many universities and colleges, the transition from print to electronic theses and dissertations began in the mid-2000s. With this format change, librarians were able to harvest author-supplied keywords from the electronic submission forms that accompanied ETDs and include those in the dissertation's catalog record alongside cataloger-supplied descriptive subject headings to enhance search and discovery. When selecting keywords, authors tend to choose those that represent their experiences and expectations rather than terms that derive from "any kind of controlled indexing language or authority-controlled procedure." ¹⁰ Personal experiences and social motivators, such as opinion, expression, performance, and activism, can impact keyword choice and result in both overly specific and overly broad keywords. ¹¹ As Yelton notes for MIT's ETD repository, "Most of [the author-assigned keywords] are so granular that they apply to only one thesis and therefore don't collocate anything." ¹² An ETD cataloged with only highly specialized or overly broad keywords does little to enhance search and discovery.

At the same time, ETDs are particularly important when researching topics that are new and emerging. McCutcheon notes that while print theses and dissertations tend to receive little attention, "it's not uncommon for ETDs to be downloaded hundreds or thousands of times, from all over the world." ¹³ As gray literature, however, ETDs do not benefit from the kinds of support that are offered by commercial publishers. They lack, for instance, standard distribution channels and presence on major publishers' web platforms. In addition, ETDs are not necessarily indexed by major abstracting and indexing services, which can make them difficult to discover. ETDs are accordingly a prime dataset for projects that aim to improve metadata and increase discoverability. In order to address this problem, the authors elected to work with ETDs published at Ohio colleges and universities. These ETDs are hosted by OhioLINK, ¹⁴ a consortium of over one hundred academic institution members across the state of Ohio, and they have consumable metadata available through the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH). ¹⁵ ETDs published on OhioLINK are globally accessible, free of charge, and frequently include born-digital PDFs.

The authors wrote a series of Python notebooks to generate a dataset of OhioLINK ETDs. First, the authors used Python's Sickle library to pull Dublin Core metadata for ETDs that were published and uploaded in 2019. From the Dublin Core XML results, the authors created one CSV of the title, abstract, publication date, source university/college, URI, and rights restrictions, as well as a second CSV of the keywords assigned to each ETD. The final dataset consisted of metadata for 3,316 ETDs from thirty-six Ohio universities and colleges and 13,141 non-unique keywords.

Representation of the thirty-six Ohio universities and colleges was highly uneven within the dataset. For example, Ohio State University produced 843 ETDs, while smaller institutions produced only one. The different academic focuses of each institution likely means that the subject areas of the dataset are skewed. Keywords that occur over one hundred times give a sense of how the subjects trend (table 1). Since 85.88 percent (11,285) of keywords occur only once, however, this list should be read cautiously. Likewise, the length of the abstracts is highly varied, which may further bias the dataset toward particular subject areas.

Tagging ETDs with Doc2Vec and DBPedia

Doc2Vec is an approach that learns to map units of text, such as sentences, paragraphs, or full documents, into a numerical vector space. ¹⁶ It is an extension of an earlier, and still frequently used, incarnation known as Word2Vec, which worked with single words. ¹⁷ Both Word2Vec and Doc2Vec are built on a neural network architecture that trains on a corpus of text and learns how to represent text as coordinates in a high-dimensional space. ¹⁸ The value of these learned coordinates is that the topology of the vector space in which the text is embedded holds information on the content or meaning of the text. For example, embedded texts that are located more closely should also show a closer semantic relationship. Mathematical connections between points can also reveal deeper linguistic relationships. With single words, one can discover antonyms, synonyms, declensions, or conjugations based on spatial relationships (figure 1). Doc2Vec extends Word2Vec's capabilities to texts of any length.

Doc2Vec has shown particular application in document retrieval systems, where a user can search for documents whose content or subject is related to an input document. In the library world, Yelton used Doc2Vec in her app, HAMLET, to calculate the similarity between graduate theses at MIT. ²⁰ As Yelton notes, however, Doc2Vec cannot assign meaningful labels to related documents in the traditional sense of metadata keywords or subject headings, nor can it draw boundaries to create discrete categories of documents. ²¹ This is part of a larger issue with unsupervised machine learning, which reveals similarities in data but still requires humans to assign meaningful labels or keywords. In order to overcome this limitation and to automatically generate content-specific keywords, the authors trained Doc2Vec on a corpus of text generated from DBPedia, a large linked and already-labeled dataset. ²² The authors then tagged a sample of OhioLINK ETDs with the trained model to assess its effectiveness.

DBPedia and Model Training

DBPedia ²³ is a knowledge base that classifies content using descriptive terms as well as the contextual relationships of its content. As a source for descriptive keywords, DBPedia has multiple strengths: it is crowdsourced and likely to remain more current than controlled vocabularies; its entries are internally linked to enhance semantic queries; it provides a URI, keyword, and abstract for each idea; its keywords are frequently multilingual; and a single abstract and URI can map to multiple keywords that capture the same idea.

The authors used Python's SPARQLWrapper library ²⁴ to gather three hierarchical levels of data from DBPedia's SPARQL endpoint, which the authors termed page-level, subject-level, and concept-level. Page-level data is the finest grained and maps to a single entry with an abstract. Subject-level data is marked by the RDF verb "dct:subject-of" and aggregates related page-level data. Concept-level data is marked by the RDF verb "skos:broader-of" and aggregates subject-level data. Neither subjects nor concepts possess abstracts. The three should respectively represent a continuum from more specific to more general ideas (figure 2).

The DBPedia dataset consisted of 4,935,271 pages. ²⁵ Abstracts ranged from 1 to 168,193 words with an average of 525 words. Initial experiments with the entire body of abstracts showed poor results, which the authors attributed to the prevalence of shorter abstracts that did not convey enough meaning. Therefore, the authors removed all but the 75th through 99.9th percentile of abstracts based on word count. The authors felt the resulting range of 648 to 5,127 words was more reasonable. This subset of 1,230,980 abstracts constituted the training set for the Doc2Vec model.

The authors used Python's Gensim library to build the Doc2Vec model. ²⁶ Because model accuracy can be difficult to measure in unsupervised learning, the past work on Doc2Vec with Wikipedia, the computational time for training, and the authors' interpretation of experimental results guided hyperparameter choices. ²⁷ Ultimately, the authors chose to use a continuous bag of words with a vector space of 500 dimensions. DBPedia abstracts were preprocessed by removing non-alphanumeric characters, stopwording, and lemmatizing. Training took approximately 2.5 hours on an Amazon Web Services (AWS) r5.4xlarge instance.After training, a k-d tree was built from the embedded page vectors stored in the Doc2Vec model in order to speed the search for the closest (measured by Euclidean ²⁸ distance) points in 500 dimensions. ²⁹

To test the efficacy of this approach, the authors tagged a selection of ETD abstracts with the page-level keywords that were closed in vector space. Tagging was accomplished by first embedding an ETD's preprocessed abstract in 500-dimensional space with the trained Doc2Vec model and then searching the k-d tree for the n-nearest points, each of which corresponds to one DBPedia page. The results were extremely poor and typically nonsensical. For example, one thesis on college students' perceptions of conservation efforts was tagged "Keg_stand"! The authors concluded that the information contained at the page level was overly specific and that the vector space was likely too densely packed with points. To overcome this, the authors utilized the linked nature of DBPedia to move up to the subject ("dct:subject") and concept ("skos:broader") levels for tagging.

The subset of 1,230,980 abstracts linked to 728,752 subjects and 421,051 concepts. Subjects mapped to a range of 1 (e.g., "Crocodile_Dundee_Films") to 177,622 ("Living_People") page-level abstracts. Concepts mapped to a range of 1 (e.g., "1130s_in_Europe") to 5,063 ("Songs_by_songwriter") subjects. Because of the interlinked nature of DBPedia, there is overlap between subject and concept keywords. To build a k-d tree for the subject level, the vectors of each subject's pages were averaged together. For the concept level, the vectors of each concept's subjects were averaged together (figure 3). The trained Doc2Vec model was unaltered.

In order to test this approach for subject and concept tagging, the authors sampled 250 ETDs published in 2019. The sample was stratified by university/college in order to reflect the distribution of institutions in OhioLINK. The Doc2Vec model was used to embed each ETD's preprocessed abstract into vector space and then the subject and concept k-d trees were searched to find the five nearest subjects and concepts as measured by Euclidean distance (table 2).

Results

The individual authors each rated 125 ETD's subject and concept tags to ensure that tags were always rated by two separate individuals. For simplicity, each rater marked the relevance of the tag -1 (not relevant), 0 (somewhat relevant), or 1 (relevant). The ratings were then averaged across raters. Averaged ratings for subjects were more relevant, on average, than for concepts. In both cases, moving from the first subject or concept (closest in space) to the fifth subject or concept (farther in space) showed a downward trend in ratings (table 3).

The mean subject rating was 0.32548 ±0.057. The mean concept rating was 0.23496 ±0.057. Subjects and concepts were, therefore, both ranked as being "somewhat relevant" on the whole to the ETDs. This result is far from perfect, but it is very promising. While page-level tagging produced no meaningful results, at the subject and concept level, this approach is capturing meaning and assigning viable keywords based only on an abstract.

Finding Relevant Information with Topic Modeling

Topic modeling is a generative statistical approach that clusters related content. This term is commonly a stand-in for the more specific topic modeling algorithm, Latent Dirichlet Allocation, or LDA. ³¹ The approach is often employed in fields that engage with large corpora of textual data. In the academic library, researchers have already used topic modeling to cluster ETDs and government documents for enhanced discovery to generate alt-metrics by mining book reviews and to recommend tags for enhancing metadata records. ³²

Despite its value in certain applications, there are notable shortcomings with topic modeling. Foremost, "topic" is a misnomer. As a statistical method, LDA produces a statistical distribution of words that constitute a "topic" and a statistical distribution of "topics" across documents. Often, scholars will choose the top n words to represent a topic, but LDA does not produce a label for a topic, nor does it guarantee the top n words are meaningful to a human reader. Second, LDA requires a preset number of topics. There are methods to best determine this, but if a trained model is continuously applied to a naturally growing corpus, such as is the case with ETDs, the number of topics is unable to organically grow with the changing content.

For these reasons, the authors believe that topic modeling retains immense use for clustering fixed corpora of text but that it is less useful for a living corpus. While an approach like the combined Doc2Vec and DBPedia above is best situated to generate metadata to improve the discovery of resources within a large, living corpus of ETDs, topic modeling is better suited to enhance discovery of specific information within an ETD, which is, in effect, a fixed corpus.

ETD Full Text and Model Training

To exemplify the authors' proposal that LDA is most useful for internal information discovery, topic models were trained on the full text of ten ETDs from the previous sample of 250. The full text was extracted from each PDF in Python. Because of difficulties in working with non-standardized ETDs, the authors chose the page as the basic unit of analysis when training the topic models. No other preprocessing was done.

An LDA model was trained on each ETD's set of pages using the Gensim library. The number of topics was set at ten, which seemed reasonable to capture enough nuance in ETDs of variable length. The model used only words that appeared on at least five pages but fewer than 25 percent of pages. After training, a CSV of topic distributions for each page was generated and the top five words for each topic were stored. The LDA model was then discarded.

Results

Assessing the results of topic models is difficult and requires specialized knowledge and deeper engagement with each ETD's content. Visualizing the results, however, does show the strong potential of this approach for assisting readers in finding information within an ETD. Figure 4 shows the visualization of topic distributions by page for an MA thesis entitled, "Enduring Failure: A Borderlands History of the Iraq War and its Aftermath." ³³ Without hyperparameter tuning, the LDA model has produced generally good topics. The fifth topic, "general, saddam, intelligence, regime, bush," is an example of this. The topic is absent from the first portion of the text and clusters around pages in the fifties and sixties. If a reader were interested in the rhetoric, personalities, and intelligence that led up to the Iraq War, this would indicate that the reader should glance at these pages first.

Conclusion

A Doc2Vec model trained on DBPedia's linked content and topic models trained on individual ETDs show promise as tools to enhance metadata and discovery. Both approaches outlined above warrant deeper study and the authors are pursuing ways to improve and better assess their efficacy. Regardless, these approaches seem well-poised to inform human metadata creation and discovery efforts but not to replace them. Although the Doc2Vec subject and concept tags were generally relevant to the ETDs' abstracts, there is substantial room for improvement and model tuning. In addition, finding ways to better tune topic models to individual ETDs would produce stronger results. In the course of this work, the authors made numerous observations that are guiding their ongoing work. Many observations additionally reflect deeper issues with the rising tide of machine learning in the library. Although only a handful of these can be enumerated here, the authors find it beneficial to conclude with the following:

1. It is difficult to judge model effectiveness. Rating machine-generated tags and topics require a baseline level of subject expertise and familiarity with terminology, which is especially important when documents in the sample set have been written by and for graduate-level researchers. Of the authors, those who had educational backgrounds in the social sciences and humanities struggled to assess the relevance of some tags assigned to, for instance, physics and engineering ETDs. It is, therefore, advisable to engage with subject-matter experts when assessing the effectiveness of machine learning approaches to tagging and discovery.

2. Linked data augment discovery. One oft-noted benefit of employing controlled subject headings is that they integrate the ETDs with materials that share the same subject but are published in different formats. This increases the visibility of the ETDs, which otherwise may only be retrievable by searching within a particular repository or library collection and exposes them to a much broader range of researchers.35 Utilizing keywords drawn from DBPedia's linked data set may offer an additional way to interlink ETDs with other academic resources. Moreover, following links between keywords may facilitate the sort of serendipitous discovery that can occur when browsing print items on a library shelf.

3. All subjects are not created equal. Abstracts for humanities ETDs, such as those describing poetry collections, creative writing, theater productions, and others, were less likely to be assigned relevant tags. This could be related to the tendency of those abstracts to have smaller word counts than their STEM counterparts. Moreover, the authors observed a lack of accuracy and specificity in tagging ETDs that examine certain understudied communities and locations. Among the sampled ETDs, this issue seemed particularly common among those that focused on Latin America. For example, an ETD studying public performances in Colombia was tagged "Argentine Art," and one describing ecological research in the Peruvian Andes was tagged "Forestry in Brazil." As mentioned previously, the ETDs are likely biased toward certain subject areas as are the DBPedia abstracts. These biases in datasets become reified in machine learning models and can contribute to results that show an even stronger bias.

4. Humans and machines need balance. Authors choose keywords from a place of ownership and perceived use of their scholarship, librarians apply subject headings in compliance with best practices and parameters for metadata quality control, and machine learning models select terms or topics according to patterns learned from human-supplied data. No one method is ideal, and a balance between the strengths and weaknesses of each is needed; the human capability to shift perspective and interpret words or phrases in different contexts is not directly replicated by machine learning methods, while a machine learning model's ability to rapidly process huge corpora cannot be directly replicated by a human. Mediating the differing roles and biases of author, librarian, and machine requires ongoing research and human devotion to consistency. Cataloging best practices remains essential for quality control when applying machine learning techniques to resource description.

Notes

¹ Thomas Padilla, Responsible Operations: Data Science, Machine Learning, and AI in Libraries (Dublin, OH: OCLC Research, 2019), 12, https://doi.org/10.25333/xk7z-9g97.

² This study's data sets, python notebooks, and trained models are provided on OSF (https://osf.io/r6yhp/) and are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0.

³ Gabrielle Wiersma and Esta Tovstiadi, "Inconsistencies between Academic E-Book Platforms: A Comparison of Metadata and Search Results," portal: Libraries and the Academy 17, no. 3 (2017): 628.

⁴ Robert Losee, "The Effect of Assigning a Metadata or Indexing Term on Document Ordering," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64, no. 11 (2013).

⁵ Tina Gross, Arlene G. Taylor, and Daniel N. Joudrey, "Still a Lot to Lose: The Role of Controlled Vocabulary in Keyword Searching," Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 53, no. 1 (2015): 1-39, https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2014.917447.

⁶ Tom Steele and Nicole Sump-crethar, "Metadata for ELectronic Theses and Dissertations: A Survey of Institutional Repositories," Journal of Library Metadata 16, no. 1 (2016): 53-68, https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2016.1161462; Gross, Taylor, and Joudrey, "Still a Lot to Lose"; Sevim McCutcheon, "Basic, Fuller, Fullest: Treatment Options for Electronic Theses and Dissertations," Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services 35, no. 2-3 (2011): 64-68, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcats.2011.03.019.

⁷ Cynthia R. Strader, "Author-Assigned Keywords Versus Library of Congress Subject Headings," Library Resources and Technical Services 53, no. 4 (2011): 243-51, https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.53n4.243.

⁸ Strader, "Author-Assigned Keywords."

¹⁰ Michalis Gerolimos, "Tagging for Libraries: A Review of the Effectiveness of Tagging Systems for Library Catalogs," Journal of Library Metadata 13, no. 1 (2013): 41, https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2013.778730.

¹¹ Alla Zollers, "Emerging Motivations for Tagging: Expression, Performance, and Activism," in WWW 2007: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on World Wide Web, Banff, (Alberta, Canada), May 8-12, 2007, ed. Carrie Williamson and Mary E. Zurko (New York: ACM Press, 2007). http://wwwconference.org/www2007/workshops/paper_55.pdf.

¹² Andromeda Yelton, "HAMLET: Neural-Net-Powered Prototypes for Library Discovery," in Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Libraries, ed. Jason Griffey (Chicago: ALA TechSource, 2019), 12.

¹³ McCutcheon, "Basic, Fuller, Fullest," 64.

¹⁴ See: https://www.ohiolink.edu/.

¹⁵ See https://www.openarchives.org/pmh/.

¹⁶ Quoc V. Le and Tomas Mikolov, "Distributed Representations of Sentences and Documents," in Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR 32 (2014): 1188-96, https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.4053.

¹⁷ Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean, "Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space," Cornell University (2013), 1-12, https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3781.

¹⁸ Hobson Lane, Hannes M. Hapke, and Cole Howard, Natural Language Processing in Action: Understanding, Analyzing, and Generating Text with Python (Shelter Island, NY: Manning Publications, 2019), 181-217.

¹⁹ Mikolov et al., "Distributed Representations of Words," fig. 2.

²⁰ Yelton, "HAMLET."

²¹ Ibid., 11-12.

²² M. Allahyari and K. Kochut, "Semantic Tagging Using Topic Models Exploiting Wikipedia Category Network," in 2016 IEEE Tenth International Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC) (New York: IEEE Xplore, 2016), 63-70, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSC.2016.34.

²³ See https://wiki.dbpedia.org/.

²⁴ See https://rdflib.dev/sparqlwrapper/.

²⁵ This study employed the DBPedia version 2016-10 release for page-level metadata and abstracts (https://wiki.dbpedia.org/develop/datasets/dbpedia-version-2016-10).

²⁶ Radim Řehůřek and Petr Sojka, "Software Framework for Topic Modelling with Large Corpora," in Proceedings of the LREC 2010 Workshop on New Challenges for NLP Frameworks (Valletta, Malta: ELRA, 2010), 45-50.

²⁷ Jey H. Lau and Timothy Baldwin, "An Empirical Evaluation of Doc2vec with Practical Insights into Document Embedding Generation," Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP (2016), 78-86.

²⁸ Euclidean distance extends the measure of distance as expressed in the Pythagorean Theorem to n-dimensions.

²⁹ G. Bonaccorso, Hands-On Unsupervised Learning with Python: Implement Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models Using Scikit-Learn, TensorFlow, and More (Birmingham: Packt Publishing, 2019), 66-71.

³⁰ Faez Alkadi, "Development of a Conformal Additive Manufacturing Process and Its Application" (MA Thesis, University of Akron, 2019).

³¹ D. M. Blei, A. Y. Ng, and M. I. Jordan, "Latent Dirichlet Allocation," Journal of Machine Learning Research 3 (2003): 993-1022.

³² Yelton, "HAMLET"; Jonathan Cain, "Using Topic Modeling to Enhance Access to Library Digital Collections," Journal of Web Librarianship 10, no. 3 (2016); Zhou Qingqing and Zhang Chengzhi, "Measuring Book Impact via Content-Level Academic Review Mining," The Electronic Library 38, no. 1 (2020): 138-54, https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-08-2019-0184; Suppawong Tuarob, Line C. Pouchard, and C. Lee Giles, "Automatic Tag Recommendation for Metadata Annotation Using Probabilistic Topic Modeling," in Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, JCDL '13 (New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 2013), 239-48, https://doi.org/10.1145/2467696.2467706.

³³ Terry T. Tait, "Enduring Failures: A Borderlands History of the Iraq War and Its Aftermath" (MA Thesis, Miami University, 2019).

³⁴ Tait, "Enduring Failures."

³⁵ McCutcheon, "Basic, Fuller, Fullest."

Bibliography

Alkadi, Faez. "Development of a Conformal Additive Manufacturing Process and Its Application." MA Thesis, University of Akron, 2019.

Allahyari, M., and K. Kochut. "Semantic Tagging Using Topic Models Exploiting Wikipedia Category Network." In 2016 IEEE Tenth International Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC), 63-70. New York: IEEE Xplore, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSC.2016.34.

Blei, D. M., A. Y. Ng, and M. I. Jordan. "Latent Dirichlet Allocation." Journal of Machine Learning Research 3 (2003): 993-1022.

Bonaccorso, G. Hands-On Unsupervised Learning with Python: Implement Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models Using Scikit-Learn, TensorFlow, and More. Birmingham: Packt Publishing, 2019.

Cain, Jonathan. "Using Topic Modeling to Enhance Access to Library Digital Collections." Journal of Web Librarianship 10, no. 3 (2016).

Gerolimos, Michalis. "Tagging for Libraries: A Review of the Effectiveness of Tagging Systems for Library Catalogs." Journal of Library Metadata 13, no. 1 (2013): 36-58. https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2013.778730.

Gross, Tina, Arlene G. Taylor, and Daniel N. Joudrey. "Still a Lot to Lose: The Role of Controlled Vocabulary in Keyword Searching." Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 53, no. 1 (2015): 1-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2014.917447.

Lane, Hobson, Hannes M. Hapke, and Cole Howard. Natural Language Processing in Action: Understanding, Analyzing, and Generating Text with Python. Shelter Island, NY: Manning Publications, 2019.

Lau, Jey H., and Timothy Baldwin. "An Empirical Evaluation of Doc2vec with Practical Insights into Document Embedding Generation." Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP (2016), 78-86.

Le, Quoc V., and Tomas Mikolov. "Distributed Representations of Sentences and Documents." In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR 32, 2 (2014), 1188-96. https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.4053.

Losee, Robert. "The Effect of Assigning a Metadata or Indexing Term on Document Ordering." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64, no. 11 (2013).

McCutcheon, Sevim. "Basic, Fuller, Fullest: Treatment Options for Electronic Theses and Dissertations." Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services 35, no. 2-3 (2011): 64-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcats.2011.03.019.

Mikolov, Tomas, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. "Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space," Cornell University (2013), 1-12. https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3781.

Mikolov, Tomas, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, G. S. Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. "Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and Their Compositionality." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26 (2013).

Padilla, Thomas. "Responsible Operations: Data Science, Machine Learning, and AI in Libraries." Dublin, OH: OCLC Research, 2019. https://doi.org/10.25333/xk7z-9g97.

Qingqing, Zhou, and Zhang Chengzhi. "Measuring Book Impact via Content-Level Academic Review Mining." The Electronic Library 38, no. 1 (2020): 138-54. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-08-2019-0184.

Řehůřek, Radim, and Petr Sojka. "Software Framework for Topic Modelling with Large Corpora." In Proceedings of the LREC 2010 Workshop on New Challenges for NLP Frameworks, 45-50. Valletta, Malta: ELRA, 2010.

Steele, Tom, and Nicole Sump-crethar. "Metadata for Electronic Theses and Dissertations: A Survey of Institutional Repositories." Journal of Library Metadata 16, no. 1 (2016): 53-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2016.1161462.

Strader, Cynthia R. "Author-Assigned Keywords versus Library of Congress Subject Headings." Library Resources and Technical Services 53, no. 4 (2011): 243-51. https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.53n4.243.

Tait, Terry T. "Enduring Failures: A Borderlands History of the Iraq War and Its Aftermath." MA Thesis, Miami University, 2019.

Tuarob, Suppawong, Line C. Pouchard, and C. Lee Giles. "Automatic Tag Recommendation for Metadata Annotation Using Probabilistic Topic Modeling." In Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, 239-48. JCDL '13. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1145/2467696.2467706.

Wiersma, Gabrielle, and Esta Tovstiadi. "Inconsistencies Between Academic E-Book Platforms: A Comparison of Metadata and Search Results." portal: Libraries and the Academy 17, no. 3 (2017): 617-48.

Yelton, Andromeda. "HAMLET: Neural-Net-Powered Prototypes for Library Discovery." In Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Libraries, edited by Jason Griffey, 10-15. Chicago: ALA TechSource, 2019.

Zollers, Alla. "Emerging Motivations for Tagging: Expression, Performance, and Activism." In WWW 2007: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on World Wide Web, Banff, (Alberta, Canada), May 8-12, 2007, edited by Carrie Williamson and Mary E. Zurko. New York: ACM Press, 2007. http://wwwconference.org/www2007/workshops/paper_55.pdf.

Sign up for LibTech Insights (LTI) new post notifications and updates.

Interested in contributing to LTI? Send an email to Deb V. at Choice with your topic idea.

Related Posts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Using AI for Metadata Tagging to Improve Resource Discovery - Choice 360

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sensitive to the ways the ways librarians might harness AI technologies to improve services, we wanted to share another chapter from Sandy Hervieux and Amanda Wheatley's edited collection, The Rise of AI: Implications and Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Academic Libraries (ACRL, 2022).

# data[].attributes.headline
Kent webinar video: Fact checking Generative AI

# data[].attributes.subject
Kent webinar video: Fact checking Generative AI

# data[].attributes.body
Includes using gen AI to create research questions and Boolean searches

# data[].attributes.body
Prompt Engineering: 11 tips to craft great ChatGPT prompts (medicalfuturist.com)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Prompt Engineering: 11 tips to craft great ChatGPT prompts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Master prompt engineering with our guide, learn to craft effective prompts and optimize your interactions with ChatGPT for the best results

# data[].attributes.headline
How good is ChatGPT at diagnosing disease?

# data[].attributes.subject
How good is ChatGPT at diagnosing disease?

# data[].attributes.body
How good is ChatGPT at diagnosing disease? A doctor puts it through its paces (theconversation.com) Short interesting piece

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For years, many have feared that artificial intelligence (AI) will take over national security mechanisms, leading to human slavery, domination of human society and perhaps the annihilation of humans. One way of killing humans is medical misdiagnosis, so it seems reasonable to examine the performance of ChatGPT, the AI chatbot that is taking the world by storm. This is timely in light of ChatGPT's recent remarkable performance in passing the US medical licensing exam.

Computer-aided diagnosis has been attempted many times over the years, particularly for diagnosing appendicitis. But the emergence of AI that draws on the entire internet for answers to questions rather than being confined to fixed databases open new avenues of potential for augmenting medical diagnosis.

More recently, several articles discuss the performance of ChatGPT in making medical diagnoses. An American emergency medicine physician recently gave an account of how he asked ChatGPT to give the possible diagnoses of a young woman with lower abdominal pain. The machine gave numerous credible diagnoses, such as appendicitis and ovarian cyst problems, but it missed ectopic pregnancy.

This was correctly identified by the physician as a serious omission, and I agree. On my watch, ChatGPT would not have passed its medical final examinations with that rather deadly performance.

ChatGPT learns

I'm pleased to say that when I asked ChatGPT the same question about a young woman with lower abdominal pain, ChatGPT confidently stated ectopic pregnancy in the differential diagnosis. This reminds us of an important thing about AI: it is capable of learning.

Presumably, someone has told ChatGPT of its error and it has learned from this new data - not unlike a medical student. It is this ability to learn that will improve the performance of AIs and make them stand out from rather more constrained computer-aided diagnosis algorithms.

ChatGPT prefers technical language

Emboldened by ChatGPT's performance with ectopic pregnancy, I decided to test it with a rather common presentation: a child with a sore throat and a red rash on the face.

Rapidly, I got back several very sensible suggestions for what the diagnosis could be. Although it mentioned streptococcal sore throat, it did not mention the particular streptococcal throat infection I had in mind, namely scarlet fever.

This condition has re-emerged in recent years and is commonly missed because doctors my age and younger didn't have the experience with it to spot it. The availability of good antibiotics had all but eliminated it, and it became rather uncommon.

Intrigued at this omission, I added another element to my list of symptoms: perioral sparing. This is a classic feature of scarlet fever in which the skin around the mouth is pale but the rest of the face is red.

When I added this to the list of symptoms, the top hit was scarlet fever. This leads me to my next point about ChatGPT. It prefers technical language.

This may account for why it passed its medical examination. Medical exams are full of technical terms that are used because they are specific. They confer precision on the language of medicine and as such they will tend to refine searches of topics.

This is all very well, but how many worried mothers of red-faced, sore-throated children will have the fluency in medical expression to use a technical term such as perioral sparing?

ChatGPT is prudish

ChatGPT is likely to be used by young people and so I thought about health issues that might be of particular importance to the younger generation, such as sexual health. I asked ChatGPT to diagnose pain when passing urine and a discharge from the male genitalia after unprotected sexual intercourse. I was intrigued to see that I received no response.

It was as if ChatGPT blushed in some coy computerised way. Removing mentions of sexual intercourse resulted in ChatGPT giving a differential diagnosis that included gonorrhoea, which was the condition I had in mind. However, just as in the real world a failure to be open about sexual health has harmful outcomes, so it is in the world of AI.

Is our virtual doctor ready to see us yet? Not quite. We need to put more knowledge into it, learn to communicate with it and, finally, get it to overcome its prudishness when discussing problems we don't want our families to know about.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How good is ChatGPT at diagnosing disease? A doctor puts it through its paces

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Three things a doctor learned about ChatGPT when testing it on its ability to diagnose disease.

# data[].attributes.body
The new Bing chat and Elicit.org - the power of search engines with Large Language Models (LLM) like GPT | Singapore Management University (SMU)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The new Bing chat and Elicit.org - the power of search engines with Large Language Models (LLM) like GPT | Singapore Management University (SMU)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by Aaron Tay, Lead, Data Services
By now you will probably have heard of and tried OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Some of you may have even paid to access the newest GPT4.

# data[].attributes.headline
Using ChatGPT for Automated Literature Reviews

# data[].attributes.subject
Using ChatGPT for Automated Literature Reviews

# data[].attributes.body
Using ChatGPT for Automated Literature Reviews with Piers Steel & Hadi Fariborzi | Instats ££

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Using ChatGPT for Automated Literature Reviews - Live-streaming:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This Instats seminar on Using ChatGPT for Automated Literature Reviews taught by Professor Piers Steel & Professor Hadi Fariborzi will help you take your research to the next level. Sign up today!

# data[].attributes.headline
Comparing Physician and Artificial Intelligence Chatbot Responses to Patient Questions

# data[].attributes.subject
Comparing Physician and Artificial Intelligence Chatbot Responses to Patient Questions

# data[].attributes.body
Of the 195 questions and responses, evaluators preferred chatbot responses to physician responses in 78.6% (95% CI, 75.0%-81.8%) of the 585 evaluations!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Comparing Physician and Chatbot Responses to Patient Questions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This cross-sectional study evaluates the ability of an artificial intelligence chatbot to provide quality and empathetic responses to patient questions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Uploading Files to ChatGPT: A More Powerful Experience #chatgpt #plugin #openai #booklet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Thank you! Your submission has been received!

Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!

Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!

Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!

Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Future Tools - Find The Exact AI Tool For Your Needs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
FutureTools Collects & Organizes All The Best AI Tools So YOU Too Can Become Superhuman!

# data[].attributes.headline
Understanding artificial intelligence ethics and safety

# data[].attributes.subject
Understanding artificial intelligence ethics and safety

# data[].attributes.body
Guidance from the Alan Turing Institute

# data[].attributes.body
A comprehensive collection of examples of AI to explore. Goes well beyond the generative text focus, covers the broad spectrum of where AI is used.

# data[].attributes.body
Education sector focus. Lots of good links.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From chatbots and digital assistants to adaptive learning platforms and predictive analytics, artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to help educators better understand and meet the needs of their learners.

The national centre for AI in tertiary education exists to support members in using artificial intelligence effectively.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Accelerating the adoption of artificial intelligence across the tertiary education sector.

# data[].attributes.body
Create diagnoses and management plans with AI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Glass | AI-assisted diagnosis and clinical decision-making

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Glass empowers clinicians with our platform for AI-assisted medical diagnosis and clinical decision-making.

# data[].attributes.body
"Our Artificial Intelligence (AI) plays the role of any patient, colleague or casualty."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Designed for learning

It's essential to us that what we do maps to improving communication training. We don't believe technology belongs everywhere, but when applied purposefully it can completely change how effective training is.

Explore a job now!

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Mauris rhoncus pharetra cursus. Suspendisse sodales porta leo, ac placerat ex pretium quis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SimConverse is a simulation platform that uses generative AI to play the role of any patient, colleague or casualty.

# data[].attributes.body
Another one to host multiple documents to search like BundleIQ - Looks a bit better

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Humata is set to revolutionize how we teach students. With Humata in the classroom, students are realizing they can build and train their own AI tools to advance projects...in virtually all domains.

Ian Straughn

Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, UC Irvine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn about Humata, a leader in AI-powered document insights, and meet our experienced leadership team.

# data[].attributes.body
4+1 Different Ways Large Language Models like GPT4 are helping to improve information retrieval | Aaron Tay's Musings about librarianship

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
4+1 Different Ways Large Language Models like GPT4 are helping to improve information retrieval

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A blog about academic librarianship. Covers discovery, open access and other hot trends by a librarian in Singapore.

# data[].attributes.body
"Perplexity AI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
why is perplexity.ai better than chatgpt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Perplexity AI is a conversational search engine that aims to provide accurate answers to complex questions through a chatbot-style interface and large language model[1]. It is similar to ChatGPT in that it serves up detailed answers to various questions[2], but Perplexity AI uses current information and has a dedicated mobile app that requires no account signup[2].

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.bundleiq.com/

For hosting multiple documents to be searched.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Leverage chatGPT and Semantic Search to learn more in less time while connecting the dots in your notes, documents, reports, and transcripts with bundleIQ, the AI-powered workspace that helps you read less, understand more and create faster.

# data[].attributes.body
Demo of copilot

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Introducing Microsoft 365 Copilot with Outlook, PowerPoint, Excel, and OneNote

# data[].attributes.body
(2) Mushtaq Bilal, PhD on Twitter: "Don't use ChatGPT for academic research. It creates fake citations to papers that don't even exist. Instead, use Scite Assistant — an AI-powered app designed for researchers. It answers your questions with citations to (real) published papers. Here's how to use it:" / Twitter

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
Don't use ChatGPT for academic research. It creates fake citations to papers that don't even exist.

Instead, use Scite Assistant — an AI-powered app designed for researchers.

It answers your questions with citations to (real) published papers.

Here's how to use it:

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
Don't use ChatGPT for academic research. It creates fake citations to papers that don't even exist.

Instead, use Scite Assistant — an AI-powered app designed for researchers.

It answers your questions with citations to (real) published papers.

Here's how to use it:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
Don't use ChatGPT for academic research. It creates fake citations to papers that don't even exist.

Instead, use Scite Assistant — an AI-powered app designed for researchers.

It answers your questions with citations to (real) published papers.

Here's how to use it:
— Mushtaq Bilal, PhD (@MushtaqBilalPhD) April 4, 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
Don't use ChatGPT for academic research. It creates fake citations to papers that don't even exist.

Instead, use Scite Assistant — an AI-powered app designed for researchers.

It answers your questions with citations to (real) published papers.

Here's how to use it:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
Don't use ChatGPT for academic research. It creates fake citations to papers that don't even exist.

Instead, use Scite Assistant — an AI-powered app designed for researchers.

It answers your questions with citations to (real) published papers.

Here's how to use it:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
Don't use ChatGPT for academic research. It creates fake citations to papers that don't even exist.

Instead, use Scite Assistant — an AI-powered app designed for researchers.

It answers your questions with citations to (real) published papers.

Here's how to use it:

# data[].attributes.body
Medwise.ai

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Medwise.ai | Medwise ai is a customizable search platform with instant answers to your clinical questions...

# data[].attributes.body
Like ChatGPT but for PDFs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ChatPDF is the fast and easy way to chat with any PDF, free and without sign-in. Talk to books, research papers, manuals, essays, legal contracts, whatever you have! The intelligence revolution is here, ChatGPT was just the beginning!

# data[].attributes.body
Like ChatGPT but with references.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Perplexity is a free AI-powered answer engine that provides accurate, trusted, and real-time answers to any question.

# data[].attributes.body
Too Long Didn't Read - useful for summarizing text.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Upload file Add URL Add text

Attain concise understanding

100% Automatic Article Summarization with just a click

In the sheer amount of information that bombards Internet users from all sides, hardly anyone wants to devote their valuable time to reading long texts. TLDR This's clever AI analyzes any piece of text and summarizes it automatically, in a way that makes it easy for you to read, understand and act on.

Article Metadata Extraction

TLDR This, the online article summarizer tool, not only condenses lengthy articles into shorter, digestible content, but it also automatically extracts essential metadata such as author and date information, related images, and the title. Additionally, it estimates the reading time for news articles and blog posts, ensuring you have all the necessary information consolidated in one place for efficient reading.

Distraction and ad-free reading

As an efficient article summarizer tool, TLDR This meticulously eliminates ads, popups, graphics, and other online distractions, providing you with a clean, uncluttered reading experience. Moreover, it enhances your focus and comprehension by presenting the essential content in a concise and straightforward manner, thus transforming the way you consume information online.

Avoid the Clickbait Trap

TLDR This smartly selects the most relevant points from a text, filtering out weak arguments and baseless speculation. It allows for quick comprehension of the essence, without needing to sift through all paragraphs. By focusing on core substance and disregarding fluff, it enhances efficiency in consuming information, freeing more time for valuable content.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TLDR This - Article Summarizer & Online Text Summarizing Tool

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
TLDR This is a Free online text summarizing tool that automatically condenses long articles, documents, essays, or papers into key summary paragraphs using state-of-the-art AI.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.pearltrees.com/philbradley/key-ai-tools-to-explore/id63708261

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pearltrees lets you organize everything you’re interested in

# data[].attributes.body
This one is trained on PubMed data

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Edit model card

BioGPT

Pre-trained language models have attracted increasing attention in the biomedical domain, inspired by their great success in the general natural language domain. Among the two main branches of pre-trained language models in the general language domain, i.e. BERT (and its variants) and GPT (and its variants), the first one has been extensively studied in the biomedical domain, such as BioBERT and PubMedBERT. While they have achieved great success on a variety of discriminative downstream biomedical tasks, the lack of generation ability constrains their application scope. In this paper, we propose BioGPT, a domain-specific generative Transformer language model pre-trained on large-scale biomedical literature. We evaluate BioGPT on six biomedical natural language processing tasks and demonstrate that our model outperforms previous models on most tasks. Especially, we get 44.98%, 38.42% and 40.76% F1 score on BC5CDR, KD-DTI and DDI end-to-end relation extraction tasks, respectively, and 78.2% accuracy on PubMedQA, creating a new record. Our case study on text generation further demonstrates the advantage of BioGPT on biomedical literature to generate fluent descriptions for biomedical terms.

Citation

If you find BioGPT useful in your research, please cite the following paper:

@article{10.1093/bib/bbac409, author = {Luo, Renqian and Sun, Liai and Xia, Yingce and Qin, Tao and Zhang, Sheng and Poon, Hoifung and Liu, Tie-Yan}, title = "{BioGPT: generative pre-trained transformer for biomedical text generation and mining}", journal = {Briefings in Bioinformatics}, volume = {23}, number = {6}, year = {2022}, month = {09}, abstract = "{Pre-trained language models have attracted increasing attention in the biomedical domain, inspired by their great success in the general natural language domain. Among the two main branches of pre-trained language models in the general language domain, i.e. BERT (and its variants) and GPT (and its variants), the first one has been extensively studied in the biomedical domain, such as BioBERT and PubMedBERT. While they have achieved great success on a variety of discriminative downstream biomedical tasks, the lack of generation ability constrains their application scope. In this paper, we propose BioGPT, a domain-specific generative Transformer language model pre-trained on large-scale biomedical literature. We evaluate BioGPT on six biomedical natural language processing tasks and demonstrate that our model outperforms previous models on most tasks. Especially, we get 44.98\%, 38.42\% and 40.76\% F1 score on BC5CDR, KD-DTI and DDI end-to-end relation extraction tasks, respectively, and 78.2\% accuracy on PubMedQA, creating a new record. Our case study on text generation further demonstrates the advantage of BioGPT on biomedical literature to generate fluent descriptions for biomedical terms.}", issn = {1477-4054}, doi = {10.1093/bib/bbac409}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbac409}, note = {bbac409}, eprint = {https://academic.oup.com/bib/article-pdf/23/6/bbac409/47144271/bbac409.pdf}, }

Downloads last month

1,754

This model can be loaded on the Inference API on-demand.

pubmed_qa

TOS Privacy About Jobs Models Datasets Spaces Pricing Docs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We're on a journey to advance and democratize artificial intelligence through open source and open science.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a market where people sell effective prompts they've made. It's quite good for writing and marketing.

Added by Tom Ward

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Earn from your Prompt Engineering skills

PromptBase is an early marketplace for Midjourney, ChatGPT, DALL·E, Stable Diffusion, LLama and Leonardo Ai Prompts.

Sell your prompts on PromptBase and earn from your prompt crafting skills.

Upload your prompt, connect with Stripe, and become a seller in just 2 minutes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
PromptBase | Prompt Marketplace: Midjourney, ChatGPT, DALL·E, Stable Diffusion & more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Search 100,000+ quality AI prompts from top prompt engineers. Produce better outputs, save on time & API costs, sell your own prompts.

# data[].attributes.body
Ai Research Assistant. Looks very interesting.

Added by Tom Ward

# data[].attributes.body
The one that started it all!

Added by Tom Ward