Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Is Google Gemini better than ChatGPT at evaluating research quality?
12
Zitationen
1
Autoren
2025
Jahr
Abstract
ABSTRACT Google Gemini 1.5 Flash scores were compared with ChatGPT 4o-mini on evaluations of (a) 51 of the author’s journal articles and (b) up to 200 articles in each of 34 field-based Units of Assessment (UoAs) from the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021. From (a), the results suggest that Gemini 1.5 Flash, unlike ChatGPT 4o-mini, may work better when fed with a PDF or article full text, rather than just the title and abstract. From (b), Gemini 1.5 Flash seems to be marginally less able to predict an article’s research quality (using a departmental quality proxy indicator) than ChatGPT 4o-mini, although the differences are small, and both have similar disciplinary variations in this ability. Averaging multiple runs of Gemini 1.5 Flash improves the scores.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI
2019 · 8.292 Zit.
Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead
2019 · 8.143 Zit.
High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence
2018 · 7.539 Zit.
Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
2005 · 5.776 Zit.
Peeking Inside the Black-Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
2018 · 5.452 Zit.