Did ChatGPT or Copilot Use Alter the Style of Internet News Headlines? A Time Series Regression Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The release of advanced Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and Copilot is changing the way text is created and may influence the content that we find on the web. This study investigated whether the release of these two popular LLMs coincided with a change in writing style in headlines and links on worldwide news websites. 175 NLP features were obtained for each text in a dataset of 451 million headlines/links. An interrupted time series analysis was applied for each of the 175 NLP features to evaluate whether there were any statistically significant sustained changes after the release dates of ChatGPT and/or Copilot. There were a total of 44 features that did not appear to have any significant sustained change after the release of ChatGPT/Copilot. A total of 13 features did appear to have a significant sustained change after the release of ChatGPT and/or Copilot, when using GPT-3 and Gopher's introduction dates as controls that showed no sustained change. A total of 91 other features did show significant change with ChatGPT and/or Copilot although significance with earlier control LLM release dates (GPT-1/2/3, Gopher) removed them from consideration. This initial analysis suggests these language models may have had a limited impact on the style of individual news headlines/links, with respect to only some NLP measures.
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 | 0.004 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".