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)
 
(113 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 Carriço FrontWater2021 3.jpg|240px]]</div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Fig1 Niszczota EconBusRev23 9-2.png|240px]]</div>
'''"[[Journal:Data and information systems management for urban water infrastructure condition assessment|Data and information systems management for urban water infrastructure condition assessment]]"'''
'''"[[Journal:Judgements of research co-created by generative AI: Experimental evidence|Judgements of research co-created by generative AI: Experimental evidence]]"'''


Most of the urban water infrastructure around the world was built several decades ago and nowadays they are deteriorated. As such, the assets that constitute these infrastructures need to be updated or replaced. Since most of the assets are buried, water utilities face the challenge of deciding where, when, and how to update or replace those assets. Condition assessment is a vital component of any planned update and replacement activities and is mostly based on the data collected from the managed networks. This collected data needs to be organized and managed in order to be transformed into useful [[information]]. Nonetheless, the large amount of assets and data involved makes data and [[information management]] a challenging task for water utilities, especially those with as lower digital maturity level. This paper highlights the importance of data and information systems' management for urban water infrastructure condition assessment based on the authors' experiences. ('''[[Journal:Data and information systems management for urban water infrastructure condition assessment|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 |
{{flowlist |
* [[Journal:Diagnostic informatics: The role of digital health in diagnostic stewardship and the achievement of excellence, safety, and value|Diagnostic informatics: The role of digital health in diagnostic stewardship and the achievement of excellence, safety, and value]]
* [[Journal:Geochemical biodegraded oil classification using a machine learning approach|Geochemical biodegraded oil classification using a machine learning approach]]
* [[Journal:Development and implementation of an LIS-based validation system for autoverification toward zero defects in the automated reporting of laboratory test results|Development and implementation of an LIS-based validation system for autoverification toward zero defects in the automated reporting of laboratory test results]]
* [[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:Emerging and established trends to support secure health information exchange|Emerging and established trends to support secure health information exchange]]
* [[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: