ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2024
An integrative decision-making framework to guide policies on regulating ChatGPT usage.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utility of Large Language Models for Congenital Microtia Reconstruction Education: Comparison of the Performance of Claude, GPT, and Gemini.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- The relationship between dependence on artificial intelligence and creative thinking dispositions among graduate students in sport sciences.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Evaluating Large Language Models for Preoperative Patient Education in Superior Capsular Reconstruction: Comparative Study of Claude, GPT, and Gemini.JMIR perioperative medicine · 2025Article
- Healthcare professionals and the public sentiment analysis of ChatGPT in clinical practice.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence has created a moment in history where human beings have begin to closely interact with artificial intelligence (AI) tools, putting policymakers in a position to restrict or legislate such tools. One particular example of such a tool is ChatGPT which is the first and world's most popular multipurpose generative AI tool. This study aims to put forward a policy-making framework of generative artificial intelligence based on the risk, reward, and resilience framework. A systematic search was conducted, by using carefully chosen keywords, excluding non-English content, conference articles, book chapters, and editorials. Published research were filtered based on their relevance to ChatGPT ethics, yielding a total of 41 articles. Key elements surrounding ChatGPT concerns and motivations were systematically deduced and classified under the risk, reward, and resilience categories to serve as ingredients for the proposed decision-making framework. The decision-making process and rules were developed as a primer to help policymakers navigate decision-making conundrums. Then, the framework was practically tailored towards some of the concerns surrounding ChatGPT in the context of higher education. In the case of the interconnection between risk and reward, the findings show that providing students with access to ChatGPT presents an opportunity for increased efficiency in tasks such as text summarization and workload reduction. However, this exposes them to risks such as plagiarism and cheating. Similarly, pursuing certain opportunities such as accessing vast amounts of information, can lead to rewards, but it also introduces risks like misinformation and copyright issues. Likewise, focusing on specific capabilities of ChatGPT, such as developing tools to detect plagiarism and misinformation, may enhance resilience in some areas (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.