Generative <scp>AI</scp> Search Engines as Arbiters of Public Knowledge: An Audit of Bias and Authority
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This paper reports on an audit study of generative AI systems (ChatGPT, Bing Chat, and Perplexity), which investigates how these new search engines construct responses and establish authority for topics of public importance. We collected system responses using a set of 48 authentic queries for 4 topics over 7 days, and analyzed the data using sentiment analysis, inductive coding, and source classification. Results provide an overview of the nature of system responses across these systems, and provide evidence of sentiment bias based on the queries and topics, and commercial and geographic biases in sources. The quality of sources used to support claims is uneven, relying heavily on News and Media, Business and Digital Media websites. Implications for system users emphasize the need to critically examine Generative AI system outputs when making decisions related to public interest and personal well‐being.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.062 | 0.232 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".