[1] WU T, HE S, LIU J, et al. A brief overview of ChatGPT: the history, status quo and potential future development[J]. IEEE/CAA journal of automatica sinica, 2023, 10(5): 1122-1136.
[2] 赵杨, 张雪, 范圣悦. AIGC驱动的智慧图书馆转型: 框架、路径与挑战[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2023, 46(7): 9-16. (ZHAO Y, ZHANG X, FAN S Y. AIGC-driven intelligent library transformation: framework, pathways and challenges[J]. Information studies: theory & application, 2023, 46(7): 9-16.)
[3] 郭亚军, 刘振阳, 郭一若, 等. AIGC大学生用户信息需求研究——以ChatGPT为例[J]. 情报科学, 2024, 42(8): 34-44. (GUO Y J, LIU Z Y, GUO Y R, et al. Study on the information needs of college students using AIGC: taking ChatGPT as an example[J]. Information science, 2024, 42(8): 34-44)
[4] TIBAU M, SIQUEIRA S W M, NUNES B P. ChatGPT for chatting and searching: repurposing search behavior[J]. Library & information science research, 2024, 46(4): 101331.
[5] KARUNARATNE T, ADESINA A. Is it the new Google: impact of ChatGPT on students' information search habits[C]//Proceedings of the 22nd European conference on e-learning. Pretoria: the University of South Africa, 2023: 147-155.
[6] HUANG Y, HUANG J X. Exploring ChatGPT for nextgeneration information retrieval: opportunities and challenges[J]. Web intelligence, 2024, 22(1): 31-44.
[7] 毛太田, 汤淦, 马家伟, 等. 人工智能生成内容（ AIGC） 用户采纳意愿影响因素识别研究——以ChatGPT为例[J]. 情报科学, 2024, 42(7): 126-136. (MAO T T, TANG G, MA J W, et al. Factors influencing user adoption intention of artificial intelligence generated content(AIGC): a study on ChatGPT[J]. Information science, 2024, 42(7): 126-136.)
[8] MAHESHWARI G. Factors influencing students' intention to adopt and use ChatGPT in higher education: a study in the Vietnamese context[J]. Education and information technologies, 2024, 29(10): 12167-12195.
[9] MENON D, SHILPA K. “Chatting with ChatGPT”: analyzing the factors influencing users' intention to use the open AI's ChatGPT using the UTAUT model[J]. Heliyon, 2023, 9(11): e20962.
[10] CHOUDHURY A, SHAMSZARE H. Investigating the impact of user trust on the adoption and use of ChatGPT: survey analysis[J]. Journal of medical Internet research, 2023, 25: e47184.
[11] 周涛, 李松洮, 邓胜利. 用户信息搜寻转移意向研究：从搜索引擎到生成式AI[J]. 图书情报工作, 2024, 68(3): 49-58. (ZHOU T, LI S T, DENG S L. Research on users' switching intention of information seeking: from search engines to generative AI[J]. Library and information service, 2024, 68(3): 49-58.)
[12] 周涛, 吴晓颖, 邓胜利. 用户知识问答转移行为研究：从问答社区到生成式AI[J]. 情报杂志, 2024, 43(2): 200-207. (ZHOU T, WU X Y, DENG S L. Examining users' switching behavior of knowledge Q&A: from Q&A communities to generative AI[J]. Journal of intelligence, 2024, 43(2): 200-207.)
[13] 张玥, 李青宇, 刘雨琪, 等. 组态视角下AIGC应用平台用户中辍行为影响因素研究[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2024, 47(3): 130-137, 148. (ZHANG Y, LI Q Y, LIU Y Q, et al. A study on discontinuance behavior in the AIGC application platform based on the perspective of configuration[J]. Information studies: theory & application, 2024, 47(3): 130-137, 148.)
[14] 储节旺, 罗怡帆, 李佳轩. AIGC对信息生成方式及用户信息行为的影响[J]. 图书情报工作, 2023, 67(24): 13-23. (CHU J W, LUO Y F, LI J X. The influence of AIGC on information generation mode and user information behavior[J]. Library and information service, 2023, 67(24): 13-23.)
[15] 王浩伟, 汪璠, 王秉琰. 主题视角下生成式人工智能生成内容与用户生成内容的比较[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2023, 46(10): 200-207, 199. (WANG H W, WANG F, WANG B Y. A comparison of Generative AI-Generated Content and UserGenerated Content in the thematic perspective[J]. Information studies: theory & application, 2023, 46(10): 200-207, 199.)
[16] 陈隽柏, 吴国平, 张童, 等. 语言学视角下人工智能生成内容与用户生成内容的对比研究——以在线医疗服务场景为例[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2024, 47(9): 192-201. (CHEN J B, WU G P, ZHANG T, et al. Comparative study of artificial intelligence generated content and user generated content from a linguistic perspective: taking online healthcare services as an example[J]. Information studies: theory & application, 2024, 47(9): 192-201.)
[17] 施亦龙, 许鑫. ChatGPT机器回答与知乎人工回答的比较[J]. 图书 馆论 坛, 2024, 44(1): 151-159. (SHI Y L, XU X. A comparative study on the response characteristics of ChatGPT and Zhihu[J]. Library tribune, 2024, 44(1): 151-159.)
[18] AYERS J W, POLIAK A, DREDZE M, et al. Comparing physician and artificial intelligence chatbot responses to patient questions posted to a public social media forum[J]. JAMA internal medicine, 2023, 183(6): 589-596.
[19] 吴丹, 孙国烨. 生成式智能搜索结果可信度研究[J]. 中国图书馆学报, 2023, 49(6): 51-67. (WU D, SUN G Y. The credibility of the results of generative intelligent search[J]. Journal of library science in China, 2023, 49(6): 51-67.)
[20] 宋士杰, 赵宇翔, 朱庆华. 从ELIZA到ChatGPT：人智交互体验中的AI生成内容（ AIGC）可信度评价[J]. 情报资料工作, 2023, 44(4): 35-42. (SONG S J, ZHAO Y X, ZHU Q H. From ELIZA to ChatGPT: AI-Generated Content(AIGC) credibility evaluation in human-intelligent interactive experience[J]. Information and documentation services, 2023, 44(4): 35-42.)
[21] BEDUÉ P, FRITZSCHE A. Can we trust AI? An empirical investigation of trust requirements and guide to successful AI adoption[J]. Journal of enterprise information management, 2022, 35(2): 530-549.
[22] KIM J, GIROUX M, LEE J C. When do you trust AI? The effect of number presentation detail on consumer trust and acceptance of AI recommendations[J]. Psychology & marketing, 2021, 38(7): 1140-1155.
[23] PELAU C, DABIJA D C, ENE I. What makes an AI device human-like? The role of interaction quality, empathy and perceived psychological anthropomorphic characteristics in the acceptance of artificial intelligence in the service industry[J]. Computers in human behavior, 2021, 122: 106855.
[24] 莫祖英, 盘大清, 刘欢, 等. 信息质量视角下AIGC虚假信息问题及根源分析[J]. 图书情报知识, 2023, 40(4): 32-40. (MO Z Y, PAN D Q, LIU H, et al. Analysis on AIGC false information problem and root cause from the perspective of information quality[J]. Documentation, information & knowledge, 2023, 40(4): 32-40.)
[25] BICKMORE T W, TRINH H, OLAFSSON S, et al. Patient and consumer safety risks when using conversational assistants for medical information: an observational study of Siri, Alexa, and Google assistant[J]. Journal of medical Internet research, 2018, 20(9): e11510.
[26] CHAKRABORTY C, BHATTACHARYA M, LEE S S. Need an AI-enabled, next-generation, advanced ChatGPT or large language models (LLMs) for error-free and accurate medical information[J]. Annals of biomedical engineering, 2024, 52(2): 134-135.
[27] 文心一言[EB/OL]. [2025-02-10]. http://agents.baidu.com/docs/model/ERNIE_bot_introduce/.
[28] JAEGER P T, BURNETT G. Information worlds: behavior, technology, and social context in the age of the Internet[M]. New York: Routledge, 2010.
[29] BURNETT G, LEE J, HOLLISTER J M, et al. Information value across cultures and communities[J]. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2014, 51(1): 1-4.
[30] AHITUV N, NEUMANN S. Principles of information systems for management[M]. Dubuqu: William C. Brown Publishers, 1986.
[31] WANG R Y, STRONG D M. Beyond accuracy: what data quality means to data consumers[J]. Journal of management information systems, 1996, 12(4): 5-33.
[32] LEE W Y, STRONG M D, KAHN B K, et al. AIMQ: a methodology for information quality assessment[J]. Information & management, 2002, 40(2): 133-146.
[33] MICHNIK J, LO M C. The assessment of the information quality with the aid of multiple criteria analysis[J]. European journal of operational research, 2009, 195(3): 850-856.
[34] ZHANG Y, TRACE C B. The quality of health and wellness self‐tracking data: a consumer perspective[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022, 73(6): 879-891.
[35] HILLIGOSS B, RIEH S Y. Developing a unifying framework of credibility assessment: construct, heuristics, and interaction in context[J]. Information processing & management, 2008, 44(4): 1467-1484.
[36] OH S, WORRALL A, YI Y J. Quality evaluation of health answers in Yahoo! answers: a comparison between experts and users[J]. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2011, 48(1): 1-3.
[37] WONG W N M, CHU S K W, HUANG H, et al. Cross‐cultural quality comparison of online health information for elderly care on Yahoo! answers[J]. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2014, 51(1): 1-10.
[38] CHU S K W, HUANG H, WONG W N M, et al. Quality and clarity of health information on Q&A sites[J]. Library & information science research, 2018, 40(3/4): 237-244.
[39] ZHU L, LI H, HE W, et al. What influences online reviews’ perceived information quality? Perspectives on information richness, emotional polarity and product type[J]. The electronic library, 2020, 38(2): 273-296.
[40] SOHN D. Coping with information in social media: the effects of network structure and knowledge on perception of information value[J]. Computers in human behavior, 2014, 32: 145-151.
[41] 孙晓宁, 赵宇翔, 朱庆华. 社会化搜索平台中信息价值感知差异研究——基于用户满意度与任务复杂性视角[J]. 情报 学报, 2018, 37(1): 86-97. (SUN X N, ZHAO Y X, ZHU Q H. Perception discrepancy of information value on social search platforms: perspectives of user satisfaction and task complexity[J]. Journal of the China Society for Scientific and Technical Information, 2018, 37(1): 86-97.)
[42] RUSHO Y, RABAN D R. Hands on: information experiences as sources of value[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2020, 71(6): 671-684.
[43] PAYNE J W. Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: an information search and protocol analysis[J]. Organizational behavior and human performance, 1976, 16(2): 366-387.
[44] GWIZDKA J, LOPATOVSKA I. The role of subjective factors in the information search process[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2009, 60(12): 2452-2464.
[45] TOMS E G, O’BRIEN H, MACKENZIE T, et al. Task effects on interactive search: the query factor[C]//6th international workshop of the initiative for the evaluation of XML retrieval. Heidelberg: Springer, 2007: 359-372.
[46] KIM K S, ALLEN B. Cognitive and task influences on web searching behavior[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2002, 53(2): 109-119.
[47] QIU L. Analytical searching vs. browsing in hypertext information retrieval systems[J]. Canadian journal of information and library science, 1993, 18(4): 1-13.
[48] CHIN J, FU W T, KANNAMPALLIL T. Adaptive information search: age-dependent interactions between cognitive profiles and strategies[C]//Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. Boston: ACM, 2009: 1683-1692.
[49] LIU J, KIM C S, CREEL C. Exploring search task difficulty reasons in different task types and user knowledge groups[J]. Information processing & management, 2015, 51(3): 273-285.
[50] BYSTRÖM K, JÄRVELIN K. Task complexity affects information seeking and use[J]. Information processing & management, 1995, 31(2): 191-213.
[51] BELL D J, RUTHVEN I. Searcher’s assessments of task complexity for web searching[C]//26th European conference on IR research. Heidelberg: Springer, 2004: 57-71.
[52] BARSKY E, BAR-ILAN J. The impact of task phrasing on the choice of search keywords and on the search process and success[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2012, 63(10): 1987-2005.
[53] 廉同辉, 余菜花. 基于任务复杂度、时间限制和搜寻能力的游客社会化搜寻效果影响机制研究[J]. 情报杂志, 2020, 39(12): 151-156. (LIAN T H, YU C H. The influence mechanism of tourists' socialized search results based on task complexity, time limit and search ability[J]. Journal of intelligence, 2020, 39(12): 151-156.)
[54] WALHOUT J, OOMEN P, JARODZKA H, et al. Effects of task complexity on online search behavior of adolescents[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2017, 68(6): 1449-1461.
[55] 姜婷婷, 贺虹虹, 张正楠. 搜索任务复杂度对用户情感的影响研究[J]. 图书情报知识, 2016(4): 74-82. (JIANG T T, HE H H, ZHANG Z N. Impacts of search task complexity on users' emotions[J]. Documentation, information & knowledge, 2016(4): 74-82.)
[56] BEHZADI H, SANATJOO A, FATTAHI R, et al. Survey the role of emotions in information retrieval[J]. Iranian journal of information processing and management, 2016, 31(2): 531-553.
[57] ARAPAKIS I, JOSE J M, GRAY P D. Affective feedback: an investigation into the role of emotions in the information seeking process[C]//Proceedings of the 31st annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. New York: ACM, 2008: 395-402.
[58] SAASTAMOINEN M, JÄRVELIN K. Search task features in work tasks of varying types and complexity[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2017, 68(5): 1111-1123.
[59] TOMS E G, FREUND L, KOPAK R, et al. The effect of task domain on search[C]//Proceedings of the 2003 conference of the centre for advanced studies on collaborative research. Toronto: IBM, 2003.
[60] TSAI M J, LIANG J C, HOU H T, et al. University students' online information searching strategies in different search contexts[J]. Australasian journal of educational technology, 2012, 28(5): 881-895.
[61] RIEH S Y. Credibility assessment of online information in context[J]. Journal of information science theory and practice, 2014, 2(3): 6-17.
[62] 陈璟浩, 罗友渔, 杨超然, 等. 突发公共卫生事件情境下视障人士的信息搜寻行为研究——基于情境任务型实验方法[J]. 情报科学, 2024, 42(1): 122-131, 152. (CHEN J H, LUO Y Y, YANG C R, et al. The information-seeking behavior of visually impaired people in the context of public health emergencies: a method of contextual task-based experimentation[J]. Information science, 2024, 42(1): 122-131, 152.)
[63] SURI S, COUNTS, S, WANG L, et al. The use of generative search engines for knowledge work and complex tasks[EB/OL]. [2025-02-12]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.04268.
[64] XU R, FENG Y, CHEN H. ChatGPT vs. Google: a comparative study of search performance and user experience[EB/OL]. [2025-02-12]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.01135.
[65] SONG X, LIU C, ZHANG Y. Chinese college students’ source selection and use in searching for health-related information online[J]. Information processing & management, 2021, 58(3): 102489.
[66] NAZI Z A, PENG W. Large language models in healthcare and medical domain: a review[J]. Informatics, 2024, 11(3): 57.
[67] GUO B, ZHANG X, WANG Z, et al. How close is ChatGPT to human experts? Comparison corpus, evaluation, and detection[EB/OL]. [2025-02-12]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.07597.
[68] WU J, GAN W, CHEN Z, et al. AI-Generated Content (AIGC): a survey[EB/OL]. [2025-02-12]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.06632.
[69] 孙晓宁, 赵宇翔, 朱庆华. 基于SQA系统的社会化搜索答案质量评价指标构建[J]. 中国图书馆学报, 2015, 41(4): 65-82. (SUN X N, ZHAO Y X, ZHU Q H. The construction of answer quality evaluation index for social search: an empirical study on social Q&A system[J]. Journal of library science in China, 2015, 41(4): 65-82.)
[70] SULLIVAN G M, ARTINO A R. Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales[J]. Journal of graduate medical education, 2013, 5(4): 541-542.
[71] NORMAN G. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics[J]. Advances in health sciences education: theory and practice, 2010, 15(5): 625-632.
[72] 梁怀新, 宋诚.AIGC时代的网络信息内容生态安全风险及其治理——兼以ChatGPT为对象的实验访谈案例分析[J]. 图书情报工作, 2023, 67(20): 58-69. (LIANG H X, SONG C. Ecological security risk and governance of network information content in AIGC era: take ChatGPT as an example[J]. Library and information service, 2023, 67(20): 58-69.)
