Debate Chatbots to Facilitate Critical Thinking on YouTube: Social Identity and Conversational Style Make A Difference
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
Exposure to diverse perspectives is helpful for bursting the filter bubble in online public video platforms. The recent advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) illuminates the potential of creating a debate chatbot that prompts users to critically examine their stances on a topic formed by watching videos. However, whether the viewer is influenced by the chatbot may depend on its persona. In this paper, we investigated the effect of two relevant persona attributes - social identity and rhetorical styles - on critical thinking. In a mixed-methods study (n=36), we found that chatbots with outgroup (vs. ingroup) identity (t(33)=-2.33, p=0.03) and persuasive (vs. eristic) rhetoric (t(44)=1.98, p=0.05) induced critical thinking most effectively, making participants re-examine their arguments. However, participants’ stances remain largely unaffected, likely due to the chatbot’s lack of contextual knowledge and human touch. Our paper provides empirical groundwork for designing chatbot persona for remedying filter bubbles in online communities.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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