发表机构
Charles Darwin University（查尔斯达尔文大学）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
该研究通过语料库辅助话语分析366篇GenAI高等教育文献，揭示AI被赋予功能性行动者角色但缺乏规范性问责，责任主要归于教育者、机构和政策，凸显能动性与问责之间的鸿沟。
AI 中文摘要
生成式人工智能（GenAI）在高等教育中日益被描述为工具、协作者、评估者、代理和基础设施。这些标签并非中立：它们塑造了谁被视为在行动、谁知道，以及至关重要的是，当有人使用AI时谁应负责。本研究考察了学者如何在2022年11月至2026年8月14日期间发表的366篇英文标题和摘要中分配此类责任。语料库辅助话语分析结合了频率计数、五词搭配、行动者-谓语关联、义务从句编码，以及对被动语态、名词化和转喻性报告表述的启发式分析。最终语料库包含91,405个词符，来源于去重后筛选出的8,734条唯一记录。AI是最常被提及的行动者，出现2,050次，并进入447个谓语关联，其中大多数涉及行动。相比之下，学生更常与知道、判断和验证相关联，但没有任何句子明确让AI承担责任。责任主要落在教育工作者、机构和政策上，或通过被动语态和名词化结构而消失。即使是“负责任AI”和“负责任使用”等常见短语，也很少指明谁对什么负责。研究结果揭示了赋予AI功能性能动性与分配规范性问责之间的持续鸿沟。
英文摘要
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly described in higher education as a tool, collaborator, evaluator, proxy, and infrastructure. These labels are not neutral: they shape who is seen as acting, knowing, and, crucially, being answerable when someone uses AI. This study examines how scholars distribute such responsibility across 366 English-language titles and abstracts published between November 2022 and 14 August 2026. A corpus-assisted discourse analysis combined frequency counts, five-word collocations, actor-predicate associations, obligation-clause coding, and heuristic analysis of passives, nominalisations, and reporting metonymies. The final corpus contained 91,405 tokens, drawn from 8,734 unique records screened after deduplication. AI was the most frequently named actor, appearing 2,050 times and entering 447 predicate associations, most involving action. Students, by contrast, were more often associated with knowing, judging, and verifying, yet no sentence ever made AI explicitly responsible. Responsibility fell largely on educators, institutions, and policy, or disappeared through passive and nominalised constructions. Even frequent phrases such as "responsible AI" and "responsible use" rarely identify who is accountable for what. The findings reveal a persistent gap between giving AI functional agency and assigning normative accountability.
