ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2024
Evaluating ChatGPT-4's historical accuracy: a case study on the origins of SWOT analysis.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study we test ChatGPT-4's ability to provide accurate information about the origins and evolution of SWOT analysis, perhaps the most widely used strategy tool in practice worldwide. ChatGPT-4 is tested for historical accuracy and hallucinations. The API is prompted using a Python script with a series of structured questions from an Excel file and the results are recorded in another Excel file and rated on a binary scale. Our findings present a nuanced view of ChatGPT-4's capabilities. We observe that while ChatGPT-4 demonstrates a high level of proficiency in describing and outlining the general concept of SWOT analysis, there are notable discrepancies when it comes to detailing its origins and evolution. These inaccuracies range from minor factual errors to more serious hallucinations that deviate from evidence in scholarly publications. However, we also find that ChatGPT-4 comes up with spontaneous historically accurate facts. Our interpretation of the result is that ChatGPT is largely trained on easily available websites and to a very limited extent has been trained on scholarly publications on SWOT analysis, especially when these are behind a paywall. We conclude with four propositions for future research.
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.