Ch(e)atGPT? An Anecdotal Approach Addressing the Impact of ChatGPT on Teaching and Learning GIScience
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural language processing systems like ChatGPT have recently attracted enormous attention in the field of higher education. We aim to contribute to this discussion by scrutinizing the suitability of current testing methods and potentially necessary shifts in learning objectives in GIScience. This paper presents an anecdotal approach to the impact of ChatGPT on teaching and learning based on a real-world use case. It focuses on the results of a fictional student who used ChatGPT for the completion of application-development assignments, including coding. The solutions were submitted to the instructor, who assessed the results in a single-blind experiment. The instructorâs feedback and grading as well as the AI-plagiarism results were part of our evaluation of the testing methods applied. This triggered a discussion on the adequacy of current learning objectives in the development of GIS applications and the integration of AI into the learning process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it