Abstract

Abstract
Abstract Some performance-based research funding systems rely on expert-assigned journal rankings to allocate resources and guide research evaluation. In Finland, the JuFo system provides journal rankings, determined by experts who assess journals using available metadata, such as bibliometric indicators, alongside qualitative judgment. While prior work has explored machine learning approaches to approximate these rankings, the recent emergence of large language models (LLMs) offers new possibilities for automated, data-driven evaluation. In this study, we examine how well LLMs can replicate JuFo rankings when given the same structured information available to experts, including citation metrics, disciplinary assignments, and publisher metadata. We systematically compare LLM predictions to expert-assigned JuFo ranks using a confusion-matrix analysis to identify cases of alignment and deviation. Our research addresses two key questions: (1) how accurately LLMs estimate journal rankings, and (2) in which situations their predictions diverge from expert judgments and which factors explain these discrepancies. Our findings show that LLMs approximate expert-assigned rankings with high overall accuracy, with most errors occurring between adjacent levels. However, their performance varies systematically across disciplines, and they tend to under-predict top-tier journals, particularly in social sciences and humanities fields.

Abstract

Abstract
Abstract Misinformation poses one of the most urgent challenges of our society and raises the question of how to deal with it and manage its rapid spread. To address this problem, a promising approach relies on AI-based misinformation detection. This chapter of the book offers a critical analysis of the ethical implications associated with the design, deployment, and use of misinformation detectors (MDs). Designing and deploying an MD—an AI system that automatically identifies misinformation—is a complex undertaking that requires an interdisciplinary approach, as the challenges faced by MD designers and deployers encompass not only technical aspects, but also linguistic, sociological, political, and especially ethical dimensions. Our analysis is ethics-oriented and follows two main lines of inquiry: (1) Ethics by Design, which focuses on issues related to the design process of an MD, and (2) Ethics of Impact, which addresses the intended and unintended effects of MD deployment and use.

Abstract

Abstract
To fulfil their mission, museums strive to ensure a balance between the inclusive fruition of collections and preservation. In this sense, as part of their non-formal educational functions, some try to develop multimedia resources to explore content, engage, and promote knowledge. This paper is based on a gamified mobile application developed for a museum in Portugal, targeting young people between 8 and 12 years old, focusing on the evaluation phase of the experience’s impact. To this end, the Method for Assessing eXperience (MAX) was adopted. MAX is presented, and introduced changes are shared, in order to simplify its application. Using MAX’s simplified version, four sessions were established with a target group of 44 young museum visitors. Results show an overall satisfaction towards the gamified mobile application. It is possible to understand that 68% of the 44 young people considered the application very useful and 57% expressed the desire to use it again in the near future. Regarding emotions during the experience, a mere 2% reported confusion, while an overwhelming 98% showcased positive reactions. This study concludes that the application may have contributed positively to raising awareness for the preservation of cultural heritage and this assessment has enabled the overall improvement of the prototype. It is believed that the provided fun involvement might help to develop further knowledge regarding museum practices, supporting and enhancing info-communicational flows. © 2025 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.