AI生成的科学文本是否遵循人类论证模式？基于CARS模型的研究文章引言比较
Does AI-Generated Scientific Text Follow Human Argumentation Patterns? A CARS-Based Comparison of Research Article Introductions
查看机构详情
- Università della Svizzera italiana (USI)（瑞士意大利语大学）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。
浏览论文内容
中文总结 AI 辅助
本研究通过CARS模型比较人类与AI生成的研究文章引言，发现人类写作更灵活，AI生成更统一，且提供CARS定义会加剧僵化。
中文摘要 AI 辅助
大型语言模型正从协助撰写研究转向协助开展研究，这使得了解它们生成的科学文本与人类写作的差异变得尤为重要。以往对此问题的研究大多停留在表面，使用词汇和文体线索，而这些线索很容易被轻度改写抹去。我们转而关注修辞结构，即文本通过一系列论证步骤来阐述观点的序列。我们基于Swales的CARS模型研究研究文章引言，并将已发表语言学文章的原版引言与同一批论文的生成版本进行比较。我们发现，人类撰写的引言在使用的步骤及其顺序上更为灵活，而生成的引言则更为统一。向模型提供CARS定义会使它们更加僵化。
英文摘要
Large language models are moving from helping write up research to helping do it, which makes it important to know how the scientific text they produce differs from human writing. Work on this question has stayed mostly at the surface, using lexical and stylistic cues that light paraphrasing erases. We look instead at rhetorical structure, the sequence of argumentative moves through which a text makes its case. We study research-article introductions under Swales' CARS model, and compare original introductions from published linguistics articles with generated counterparts of the same papers. We find that human-written introductions are more flexible in which moves they use and in what order, while the generated ones are more uniform. Giving the models the CARS definitions makes them more rigid.
