ChatGPT not Useful as a Tool to Streamline Library Cataloguing Processes

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip30524

Abstract

A Review of:

Brzustowicz, R. (2023). From ChatGPT to CatGPT: The Implications of Artificial Intelligence on Library Cataloging. Information Technology and Libraries, 42(3). https://doi.org/10.5860/ital.v42i3.16295

Objective – To evaluate the potential of ChatGPT as a tool for improving efficiency and accuracy in cataloguing library records.

Design – Observational, descriptive study.

Setting – Online, using ChatGPT and the WorldCat catalogue.

Subject – The Large Language Model (LLM) ChatGPT.

Methods – Prompting ChatGPT to create MARC records for items in different formats and languages and comparing the ChatGPT derived records versus those obtained from the WorldCat catalogue.

Main results – ChatGPT was able to generate MARC records, but the accuracy of the records was questionable, despite the authors’ claims.

Conclusion – Based on the results of this study, the author concludes that using ChatGPT to streamline the process of cataloging could allow library staff to focus time and energy on other types of work. However, the results presented suggest that ChatGPT introduces significant errors in the MARC records created, thereby requiring additional time for cataloguers to correct the error-laden records. The author correctly stresses that if ChatGPT were used to assist with cataloguing, it would remain important for professionals to check the records for completion and accuracy.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Amram, T., Malamud, R. G., & Hollingsworth, C. (2023). Response to "From ChatGPT to CatGPT". Information Technology and Libraries, 42(4). https://doi.org/10.5860/ital.v42i4.16983 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5860/ital.v42i4.16983

Brzustowicz, R. (2023). From ChatGPT to CatGPT: The Implications of Artificial Intelligence on Library Cataloging. Information Technology and Libraries, 42(3). https://doi.org/10.5860/ital.v42i3.16295 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5860/ital.v42i3.16295

Burger, R. H. (1984). Artificial Intelligence and Authority Control. Library Resources and Technical Services, 28(4), 337-45.

DeZelar-Tiedman, C. (2023). Response to "From ChatGPT to CatGPT". Information Technology and Libraries, 42(4). https://doi.org/10.5860/ital.v42i4.16991 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5860/ital.v42i4.16991

Floyd, D. (2023). Response to "From ChatGPT to CatGPT". Information Technology and Libraries, 42(4). https://doi.org/10.5860/ital.v42i4.16995 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5860/ital.v42i4.16995

Lowagie, H. (2023). From Bias to Transparency: Ethical Imperatives in AI-Based Library Cataloging. Retrieved from https://repository.ifla.org/handle/123456789/2841

Perryman, C. & Rathbun-Grubb, S. (2014). The CAT: a generic critical appraisal tool. In JotForm – Form Builder. Retrieved 21 Aug. 2014 from http://www.jotform.us/cp1757/TheCat

Weibel, S. L. (1990). Automated cataloging: implications for libraries and patrons. 27th Clinic on Library Applications of Data Processing, (pp. 67-80). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2142/1294

Downloads

Published

2024-06-14

How to Cite

Miller-Nesbitt, A. (2024). ChatGPT not Useful as a Tool to Streamline Library Cataloguing Processes. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 19(2), 145–147. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip30524

Issue

Vol. 19 No. 2 (2024)

Section

Evidence Summaries

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Andrea Miller-Nesbitt

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The Creative Commons-Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike License 4.0 International applies to all works published by Evidence Based Library and Information Practice. Authors will retain copyright of the work.