Cognitive networks highlight differences and similarities in the STEM mindsets of human and LLM-simulated trainees, experts and academics

Fuente: arXiv
Enregistré dans:
Détails bibliographiques
Auteurs principaux: Haim, Edith, Bergh, Lars van den, Siew, Cynthia S. Q., Kenett, Yoed N., Marinazzo, Daniele, Stella, Massimo
Format: Preprint
Publié: 2025
Sujets:
Accès en ligne:
Tags: Ajouter un tag
Pas de tags, Soyez le premier à ajouter un tag!
_version_ 1866912249859276800
author Haim, Edith
Bergh, Lars van den
Siew, Cynthia S. Q.
Kenett, Yoed N.
Marinazzo, Daniele
Stella, Massimo
author_facet Haim, Edith
Bergh, Lars van den
Siew, Cynthia S. Q.
Kenett, Yoed N.
Marinazzo, Daniele
Stella, Massimo
contents Understanding attitudes towards STEM means quantifying the cognitive and emotional ways in which individuals, and potentially large language models too, conceptualise such subjects. This study uses behavioural forma mentis networks (BFMNs) to investigate the STEM-focused mindset, i.e. ways of associating and perceiving ideas, of 177 human participants and 177 artificial humans simulated by GPT-3.5. Participants were split in 3 groups - trainees, experts and academics - to compare the influence of expertise level on their mindset. The results revealed that human forma mentis networks exhibited significantly higher clustering coefficients compared to GPT-3.5, indicating that human mindsets displayed a tendency to form and close triads of conceptual associations while recollecting STEM ideas. Human experts, in particular, demonstrated robust clustering coefficients, reflecting better integration of STEM concepts into their cognitive networks. In contrast, GPT-3.5 produced sparser mindsets. Furthermore, both human and GPT mindsets framed mathematics in neutral or positive terms, differently from STEM high schoolers, researchers and other large language models sampled in other works. This research contributes to understanding how mindset structure can provide cognitive insights about memory structure and machine limitations.
format Preprint
id arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2502_19529
institution arXiv
publishDate 2025
record_format arxiv
spellingShingle Cognitive networks highlight differences and similarities in the STEM mindsets of human and LLM-simulated trainees, experts and academics
Haim, Edith
Bergh, Lars van den
Siew, Cynthia S. Q.
Kenett, Yoed N.
Marinazzo, Daniele
Stella, Massimo
Computation and Language
Artificial Intelligence
68T01 (Primary), 05C82 (Secondary)
Understanding attitudes towards STEM means quantifying the cognitive and emotional ways in which individuals, and potentially large language models too, conceptualise such subjects. This study uses behavioural forma mentis networks (BFMNs) to investigate the STEM-focused mindset, i.e. ways of associating and perceiving ideas, of 177 human participants and 177 artificial humans simulated by GPT-3.5. Participants were split in 3 groups - trainees, experts and academics - to compare the influence of expertise level on their mindset. The results revealed that human forma mentis networks exhibited significantly higher clustering coefficients compared to GPT-3.5, indicating that human mindsets displayed a tendency to form and close triads of conceptual associations while recollecting STEM ideas. Human experts, in particular, demonstrated robust clustering coefficients, reflecting better integration of STEM concepts into their cognitive networks. In contrast, GPT-3.5 produced sparser mindsets. Furthermore, both human and GPT mindsets framed mathematics in neutral or positive terms, differently from STEM high schoolers, researchers and other large language models sampled in other works. This research contributes to understanding how mindset structure can provide cognitive insights about memory structure and machine limitations.
title Cognitive networks highlight differences and similarities in the STEM mindsets of human and LLM-simulated trainees, experts and academics
topic Computation and Language
Artificial Intelligence
68T01 (Primary), 05C82 (Secondary)
url https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.19529