Direction, evidence grade, and study type are AI-generated labels (gpt-5-mini), not human-verified. Syntheses are LLM-written. "Tensions" are machine-detected candidates, not confirmed contradictions. A research-acceleration tool, not peer review.
How this is built →
2Distinct papers
0Unique collaborators
2/2Semantic Scholar citation coverage
Publication span: 2026. Corpus fetch span: 2026.
Identity provenance
Provider IDs
- Semantic Scholar:
2424679161
ORCID evidence
No valid ORCID is stored.
Observed aliases (1)
- Peng Gang (semantic scholar, provider refresh)
Topics and outcomes in this view
Assessment themes
- Human Ai Collab: 2 papers
- Productivity: 2 papers
- Adoption: 1 paper
Claim outcomes
- Output Quality: 2 papers
- Other: 2 papers
- Task Completion Time: 2 papers
- Organizational Efficiency: 1 paper
- Worker Satisfaction: 1 paper
Papers in the Semantic Scholar view
Latest stored Semantic Scholar author observations only. Citation counts below are from the same provider and are not combined with other services.
Scroll the table horizontally to see every column.
| Paper | Author evidence | Date | Provider citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Structured intent prompts (5W3H/CO-STAR/RISEN) make AI understanding far more consistent across languages and models and speed up human–AI interactions, with the biggest improvements on weaker models; users needed 60% fewer rounds and reported much higher satisfaction when AI-expanded 5W3H prompts were used.arxiv | Peng Gang provider id |
2026-03-31 | 2 |
| Natural-language rendering of a structured prompt protocol (PPS) meaningfully improves LLM alignment and usability—cutting follow-up prompts by about two-thirds—especially for ambiguous business tasks; however, benefits vary by task type and conventional evaluation metrics can mask these practical gains.arxiv | Peng Gang provider id |
2026-03-19 | 4 |
Citation observation summary
Semantic Scholar supplied counts for 2 of 2 papers in this view; 0 are missing. The observed paper counts sum to 6 cumulative citations. This is a coverage summary, not an author score or h-index.