The Temperature Feature of ChatGPT: Modifying Creativity for Clinical Research
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
More clinicians and researchers are exploring uses for large language model chatbots, such as ChatGPT, for research, dissemination, and educational purposes. Therefore, it becomes increasingly relevant to consider the full potential of this tool, including the special features that are currently available through the application programming interface. One of these features is a variable called temperature, which changes the degree to which randomness is involved in the model's generated output. This is of particular interest to clinicians and researchers. By lowering this variable, one can generate more consistent outputs; by increasing it, one can receive more creative responses. For clinicians and researchers who are exploring these tools for a variety of tasks, the ability to tailor outputs to be less creative may be beneficial for work that demands consistency. Additionally, access to more creative text generation may enable scientific authors to describe their research in more general language and potentially connect with a broader public through social media. In this viewpoint, we present the temperature feature, discuss potential uses, and provide some examples.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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