Further, search engines type search is increasingly personalized to the browser/machine on which you are searching. So even what might seem like a simple test to compare [giraffes medieval Europe] and [Were there giraffes in medieval Europe?] may result in consistent findings across tests.

Unfortunately, search engines (unlike scholarly databases in your library) are not very transparent about their algorithms, so I don’t know that I can tell you definitively which ones are better for to phrase in what ways. And they are also constantly changing…

This is likely still true in most library scholarly databases to which you have access.

However, many search engines are now trained differently, and in some it may even be an asset now to include a complete English question.

You search in a generationally-appropriate way, likely using keywords even when using Google. This used to be necessary, b/c “stop words” (e.g., a, and, the, is) used to make search algorithms less efficient.

Yes, there are data.

But to expand, the short answer is that it depends on the database you are searching. They all have their own search syntax algorithms.

Here are a few negative impacts of GenAI and misinformation on immigrants and settlement services, along with mitigation strategies for building resilience.

(Or even if not quite =, good enough that the loss in learning is outweighed by the greater # served. For ex, it’s only 60% as good but we can teach 3x as many so it’s a net gain in terms of instructor time. A very quant way to think about it, but larger classes are driven by economic pressures.)

Yes, are you aware of anyone using online interactive modules successfully for graduate level qualitative methods training? (Maybe Master’s level, since it seems unlikely at PhD level.) I’d love to hear from instructors who feel they’ve been able to give equivalent instruction in large groups.

But at least that whole process happened in relatively appropriate locales! No beds to be seen! (Low bar, but…)