Conversational and generative artificial intelligence and human–chatbot interaction in education and 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
Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) as a disruptive technology is not new. However, its recent evolution, engineered by technological transformation, big data analytics, and quantum computing, produces conversational and generative AI (CGAI/GenAI) and human‐like chatbots that disrupt conventional operations and methods in different fields. This study investigates the scientific landscape of CGAI and human–chatbot interaction/collaboration and evaluates use cases, benefits, challenges, and policy implications for multidisciplinary education and allied industry operations. The publications trend showed that just 4% ( n = 75) occurred during 2006–2018, while 2019–2023 experienced astronomical growth ( n = 1763 or 96%). The prominent use cases of CGAI (e.g., ChatGPT) for teaching, learning, and research activities occurred in computer science (multidisciplinary and AI; 32%), medical/healthcare (17%), engineering (7%), and business fields (6%). The intellectual structure shows strong collaboration among eminent multidisciplinary sources in business, information systems, and other areas. The thematic structure highlights prominent CGAI use cases, including improved user experience in human–computer interaction, computer programs/code generation, and systems creation. Widespread CGAI usefulness for teachers, researchers, and learners includes syllabi/course content generation, testing aids, and academic writing. The concerns about abuse and misuse (plagiarism, academic integrity, privacy violations) and issues about misinformation, danger of self‐diagnoses, and patient privacy in medical/healthcare applications are prominent. Formulating strategies and policies to address potential CGAI challenges in teaching/learning and practice are priorities. Developing discipline‐based automatic detection of GenAI contents to check abuse is proposed. In operational/operations research areas, proper CGAI/GenAI integration with modeling and decision support systems requires further studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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