ArticlePloS one2024
Can we spot fake public comments generated by ChatGPT(-3.5, -4)?: Japanese stylometric analysis expose emulation created by one-shot learning.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Detecting "large language models fingerprint" for Japanese texts generated by six LLMs.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Integrated ensemble of BERT- and feature-based models for authorship attribution in Japanese literary works.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Article
- Almost Nobody Is Using ChatGPT to Write Academic Science Papers (Yet).Big data and cognitive computing · 2024Article
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
Public comments are an important opinion for civic when the government establishes rules. However, recent AI can easily generate large quantities of disinformation, including fake public comments. We attempted to distinguish between human public comments and ChatGPT-generated public comments (including ChatGPT emulated that of humans) using Japanese stylometric analysis. Study 1 conducted multidimensional scaling (MDS) to compare 500 texts of five classes: Human public comments, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 generated public comments only by presenting the titles of human public comments (i.e., zero-shot learning, GPTzero), GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 emulated by presenting sentences of human public comments and instructing to emulate that (i.e., one-shot learning, GPTone). The MDS results showed that the Japanese stylometric features of the public comments were completely different from those of the GPTzero-generated texts. Moreover, GPTone-generated public comments were closer to those of humans than those generated by GPTzero. In Study 2, the performance levels of the random forest (RF) classifier for distinguishing three classes (human, GPTzero, and GPTone texts). RF classifiers showed the best precision for the human public comments of approximately 90%, and the best precision for the fake public comments generated by GPT (GPTzero and GPTone) was 99.5% by focusing on integrated next writing style features: phrase patterns, parts-of-speech (POS) bigram and trigram, and function words. Therefore, the current study concluded that we could discriminate between GPT-generated fake public comments and those written by humans at the present time.
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.