Communicative AI in the scientific public sphere: An analysis of Twitter discourse on generative AI tools
Telematics and Informatics, ISSN: 0736-5853, Vol: 98, Page: 102261
2025
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Drawing on the concept of the scientific public sphere, this study examines the public sense-making of communicative AI (e.g., generative AI) on social media. Advancing a framework encompassing cognitive (technology vs. use) and affective (positive vs. negative) dimensions of the public discourse on communicative AI, we analyzed global Twitter (now X) conversations about generative AI tools. Findings showed that the text generator (ChatGPT) discussions centered more on the technology-centered themes, whereas the image generator discussions emphasized their uses. ChatGPT received mixed sentiments in technology-related discussions, while there was more positive sentiment about the its uses. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know