پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 49 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 1,282 |
| تعداد مقالات | 11,081 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 22,936,162 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 15,485,157 |
اولویتبندی ابزارهای هوش مصنوعی چت جی پی تی، جمینای، کوپایلوت و بینگ در حوزه مدیریت دانش | ||
| پژوهش های کتابخانه های دیجیتالی و هوشمند | ||
| دوره 12، شماره 3 (پیاپی 46)، آبان 1404، صفحه 69-82 اصل مقاله (972.92 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30473/mrs.2026.77693.1699 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| جلال رضائی نور* 1؛ ایمان نریمانی2؛ رخساره محمدی3 | ||
| 1استاد، گروه مهندسی صنایع، مدیر فناوری اطلاعات، دانشگاه قم | ||
| 2دانشجوی دکتری، گروه علم اطلاعات و دانششناسی دانشگاه قم، قم، ایران | ||
| 3کارشناسی ارشد، گروه علم اطلاعات و دانششناسی، دانشگاه قم، قم، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| هدف از پژوهش حاضر، اولویتبندی چتباتهای هوشمصنوعی در حوزه مدیریت دانش از مناظر کاربردی بودن، کیفیت اطلاعات و کاربرپسند از دیدگاه خبرگان بوده است. پژوهش حاضر از نوع تحقیقات کاربردی است که با استفاده از روش تحلیل محتوا انجام شده است. جهت انتخاب سؤالات پژوهش جهت پرسش از ربات های هوش مصنوعی، از پایگاه گوگل ترندز استفاده شد و برای اولویتبندی پاسخهای چتباتهای هوش مصنوعی، از روش فرآیند تحلیل سلسله مراتبی (AHP) استفاده شده است. مطابق یافتهها در مقایسه پاسخ چهار ربات چت هوش مصنوعی به پرسشهایی در مورد مدیریت دانش با در نظر گرفتن شاخصهای مورد پژوهش چتبات جمینای با وزن 418/0 در رتبه اول، چت جی پی تی با وزن 315/0 در رتبه دوم، بینگ با وزن 167/0 در رتبه سوم و کوپایلوت با وزن 1/0 در رتبه چهارم قرار دارد. با توجه به یافتههای پژوهش چتبات جمینای پاسخهای مناسبتری به سؤالهای حوزه مدیریت دانش نسبت به سایر چتباتهای مورد پژوهش ارائه کرده است. اطلاعات ارائهشدهی چت باتهای چت جی پی تی و جمینای بیشتر از سایر چت باتهای مورد پژوهش کاربردی است و اطلاعات ارائه شدهی چتبات جمینای نسبت به سایر چت باتهای مورد پژوهش کیفی تر وکاربرپسندتر است. در بین شاخصهای پژوهش، از نظر خبرگان به ترتیب کاربردی بودن بیشترین اهمیت و کاربرپسند بودن کمترین اهمیت را داشته است. با بررسی پژوهشهای مختلف در حوزه هوش مصنوعی میتوان دریافت که عملکرد چتباتهای هوش مصنوعی در حوزههای مختلف علمی، میتواند متفاوت باشد و به نظر میرسد که در مجموع در حوزه مدیریت دانش، عملکرد چتبات جمینای، نسبت به سایر چتباتهای بررسی شده در این پژوهش بهتر بوده است. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| چتبات؛ مدیریت دانش؛ چت جی پی تی؛ هوش مصنوعی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Prioritizing AI Tools: Chat GPT, Gemini, Copilot, and Bing in Knowledge Management | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Jalal Rezaeenour1؛ Iman Narimani2؛ Rokhsareh Mohammadi3 | ||
| 1Professor, Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Qom, Qom, Iran. | ||
| 2PhD. Student of Department of Knowledge and Information Science, University of Qom, Qom, Iran | ||
| 3MSc, Department of Information Science and Knowledge, University of Qom, Qom, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Introduction AI chatbots have emerged as effective tools by simulating human conversations and providing accurate and optimized responses, increasingly replacing traditional search methods and gaining popularity among users. On the other hand, the ability of AI chatbots to appropriately respond to user queries in the field of knowledge management is crucial for facilitating access to information, improving decision-making processes, enhancing organizational efficiency, and finding accurate and relevant answers to support learning and knowledge updating within organizations. The aim of this study is to prioritize AI chatbots in the field of knowledge management based on usefulness, information quality, and user-friendliness, from the perspective of experts. Mothodology This research is an applied study conducted using a mixed-methods approach. Given that the research is carried out in two phases – the first phase involving the selection of research questions to pose to artificial intelligence robots, and the second phase involving the prioritization of responses from AI chatbots to rank the four AI chatbots under investigation based on the examined criteria – two methods, content analysis and the multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) technique, have been employed based on the structure of each of these sections. To select the research questions for querying the AI robots, the Google Trends database was utilized. In this database, search terms from global searches conducted between 2004 and June 20, 2024, were collected. Subsequently, considering the necessity of formulating these terms as questions for the AI chatbots, the terms were transformed into interrogative sentences. Finally, after removing several irrelevant terms, five questions – "What is knowledge management?", "Why is knowledge management important?", "What is knowledge?", "What are the processes of knowledge management?", and "Please introduce some tools and techniques of knowledge management" – were systematically searched in the AI chatbots ChatGPT (January 24 version), Gemini, Bing, and Copilot. For this purpose, all browser data was completely cleared before initiating the search, and separate accounts were created for interaction with each AI chatbot to ensure significant differentiation. Each request was processed in a separate chat page to ensure the isolation and optimization of the analytical process. For the prioritization of the AI chatbots' responses, considering the use of multiple criteria in this research, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method was employed. Subsequently, using the pairwise comparison method via questionnaires, the questions and saved responses from the AI chatbots were provided to ten experts in the field of knowledge management. Furthermore, three main criteria – "information quality," "usability," and "user-friendliness" – were considered for evaluating the responses based on a review of prior research, allowing the experts to assess the responses according to these three criteria. Additionally, the experts were asked to provide their assessment of the importance of the three criteria. Expert Choice software version 11 was used to design the hierarchical tree. Findings In comparing the responses of four AI chatbots to questions about knowledge management based on the research indicators, Gemini ranks first with a weight of 0.418, followed by ChatGPT in second place with 0.315, Bing in third with 0.167, and Copilot in fourth with 0.1. According to the research findings, when evaluating the responses of the four AI chatbots based on the information quality criterion, Gemini again ranks first with a weight of 0.525, ChatGPT second with 0.224, Bing third with 0.158, and Copilot fourth with 0.093. This indicates that Gemini provided more appropriate responses to knowledge management questions in terms of information quality. In terms of practicality, ChatGPT ranks first with a weight of 0.379, followed by Gemini in second with 0.357, Bing in third with 0.167, and Copilot in fourth with 0.097. This suggests that, from the experts’ point of view, the information provided by ChatGPT and Gemini is more practical than that of the other chatbots examined. With respect to the user-friendliness criterion, Gemini once again ranks first with a weight of 0.395, followed by ChatGPT with 0.264, Bing with 0.192, and Copilot with 0.149. Therefore, Gemini’s responses are considered more user-friendly compared to the other chatbots in the study. Finally, in the overall prioritization of the research criteria—based on comparing the responses of the four AI chatbots to knowledge management questions—the experts ranked the indicators as follows: practicality ranked first with a weight of 0.505, information quality second with 0.397, and user-friendliness, with a significantly lower weight of 0.097, ranked third. In conclusion, practicality was considered the most important criterion, while user-friendliness was deemed the least important. Discussion and Conclusion Previous studies indicate a growing trend in the use of chatbots and suggest that they enhance the user experience through a more conversational interface. However, the quality of chatbot responses largely depends on users' skill in formulating appropriate questions and critically evaluating the answers. Based on various studies in the field of artificial intelligence, it can be concluded that the performance of AI chatbots may vary across different scientific domains. Overall, in the field of knowledge management, Gemini performed better than the other chatbots evaluated in this research. This study is the first research to examine the performance of AI chatbots in the field of knowledge management. Furthermore, this topic represents a scientific contribution that can be beneficial to AI researchers in improving chatbot capabilities and designing localized chatbots, as well as to knowledge management professionals in effectively utilizing chatbots within organizations. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Chatbot, Knowledge Management, Artificial Intelligence | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Ahmadabadi, Z., Masrournia, M. (2024). Application and Comparison of Bard and ChatGPT in Inorganic Chemistry Education. (In Persian) Akhgari, N., Keshtkar Heranki, M. & Ahmadi Sharif, M. (2022). Investigating the Impact of Business Intelligence on Customer Relationship Management Success Using the Mediating Variable of Knowledge Management (Case Study: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Industry). Quarterly Journal of Industrial Technology Development, 20(48), 35–52. (In Persian) doi: 10.22034/jtd.2026.2045617.1972 Amirhosseini, F. (2023). ChatGPT vs. Professor. 2nd National Conference on Future Studies, Higher Education, and Sustainable Development, Tehran. (In Persian) Ayers, J. W., Poliak, A., Dredze, M., Leas, E. C., Zhu, Z., Kelley, J. B., Faix, D. J., Goodman, A. M., Longhurst, C. A., Hogarth, M., & Smith, D. M. (2023). Comparing Physician and Artificial Intelligence Chatbot Responses to Patient Questions Posted to a Public Social Media Forum. JAMA internal medicine, 183(6), 589-596. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.1838 Bakhshande, M. (2024). A Contrastive Analysis of Human and Machine Translation (Google and ChatGPT Translation) of Modal Verbs in the Little Prince. Msc Thesis, Zand Institute of Higher Education, Faculty of Humanities. (In Persian) Bhardwaz, S., & Kumar, J. (2023). An Extensive Comparative Analysis of Chatbot Technologies - ChatGPT, Google BARD and Microsoft Bing. 2023 2nd International Conference on Applied Artificial Intelligence and Computing (ICAAIC), 673–679. https://doi.org/10.1109/icaaic56838.2023.10140214 Biswas, S., Logan, N. S., Davies, L. N., Sheppard, A. L., & Wolffsohn, J. S. (2023). Assessing the utility of ChatGPT as an artificial intelligence‐based large language model for information to answer questions on myopia. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 43(6), 1562–1570. https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.13207 Ebrahimi Khani, O. (2024). A Comparative Evaluation of Translation by ChatGPT and Human Evaluators. Msc Thesis, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages. (In Persian) Emile, S. H., Horesh, N., Freund, M., Pellino, G., Oliveira, L., Wignakumar, A., & Wexner, S. D. (2023). How appropriate are answers of online chat-based artificial intelligence (ChatGPT) to common questions on colon cancer?. Surgery, 174(5), 1273–1275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2023.06.005 Guo, B., Zhang, X., Wang, Z., Jiang, M., Nie, J., Ding, Y., Yue, J., & Wu, Y. (2023). How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detection. ArXiv, abs/2301.07597. Hassanzadeh, M. (2023). Intelligent Agents and Knowledge Management Facilities: ChatGPT and Beyond. Science and Technology of Information Management, 8(4), 7-22. (In Persian) Doi: 10.22091/stim.2023.2421 Humphry, T., & Fuller, A. L. (2023). Potential ChatGPT Use in Undergraduate Chemistry Laboratories. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(4), 1434–1436. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00006 Jafari, A. H. (2024). Investigating the Progress of Artificial Intelligence in the Internet of Things through ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4. Msc Thesis, Imam Reza International University, Faculty of Engineering. (In Persian) Khamseh, A., Ezzati, M, & Khamseh, A. (2024). Innovation Strategy and Bank Performance: The Moderating Role of Dynamic Knowledge Management Capabilities. Industrial Technology Development, 22(55), 3-16. (In Persian) doi:10.22034/jtd.2024.1999469.1846 Khorram Monfared, A., Nasiri Sarvi, M., & Shoja Al-Sadati, S. J. (2023). A Comparative Study of the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Knowledge Management. 5th International Conference on Management and Industry. (In Persian) Lyons, R. J., Arepalli, S. R., Fromal, O., Choi, J. D., & Jain, N. (2024). Artificial intelligence chatbot performance in triage of ophthalmic conditions. Canadian journal of ophthalmology. Journal canadien d'ophtalmologie, 59(4), e301–e308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjo.2023.07.016 Mirhashemi, Z. (2024). A Comparative Study of Colloquial Language Translation from Persian to English with Machine Translation and Artificial Intelligence. Msc Thesis, Kharazmi University, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Dr. Ali Shariati. (In Persian) Moshirfar, M., Altaf, A. W., Stoakes, I. M., Tuttle, J. J., & Hoopes, P. C. (2023). Artificial Intelligence in Ophthalmology: A Comparative Analysis of GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Human Expertise in Answering StatPearls Questions. Cureus, 15(6), e40822. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.40822 Musheyev, D., Pan, A., Loeb, S., & Kabarriti, A. E. (2024). How Well Do Artificial Intelligence Chatbots Respond to the Top Search Queries About Urological Malignancies?. European urology, 85(1), 13–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2023.07.004 Perez-Soler, S., Juarez-Puerta, S., Guerra, E., & de Lara, J. (2021). Choosing a Chatbot Development Tool. IEEE Software, 38(4), 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1109/ms.2020.3030198 Rahimian, E. (2023). Investigating the Impact of Knowledge Management Implementation on Improving Quality Management Systems Using Artificial Intelligence. Msc Thesis, Ghiasoddin Jamshid Kashani University, Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management. (In Persian) Şahin, M. F., Ateş, H., Keleş, A., Özcan, R., Doğan, Ç., Akgül, M., & Yazıcı, C. M. (2024). Responses of Five Different Artificial Intelligence Chatbots to the Top Searched Queries about Erectile Dysfunction: A Comparative Analysis. Journal of Medical Systems, 48(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-024-02056-0 Shen, J., Zhang, C. J. P., Jiang, B., Chen, J., Song, J., Liu, Z., He, Z., Wong, S. Y., Fang, P. H., & Ming, W. K. (2019). Artificial Intelligence Versus Clinicians in Disease Diagnosis: Systematic Review. JMIR medical informatics, 7(3), e10010. https://doi.org/10.2196/10010 Skjuve, M., & Brandzaeg, P. B. (2019). Measuring User Experience in Chatbots: An Approach to Interpersonal Communication Competence. Internet Science, 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17705-8_10 Vafaei Zanjani, M. (2023). Artificial Intelligence and Content Creation for Podcast Production (Podcast) Grammar: A Comparative Study of ChatGPT and Google Bard in the Context of English as a Foreign Language. Msc Thesis, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages. (In Persian) Yunjiu, L., Wei, W., & Zheng, Y. (2022). Artificial Intelligence-Generated and Human Expert Designed Vocabulary Tests: A Comparative Study. Sage Open, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221082130. Zandian, F., Amini Gharaghieh, H., & Hassanzadeh, M. (2018). Ranking of Public Libraries in West Azarbaijan Province Based on Library Services Using Analytic Hierarchy Process. Information Research and Public Libraries, 24(4), 613-633. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 30 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 16 |
||