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
9Unique collaborators
2/2Semantic Scholar citation coverage
Publication span: 2026. Corpus fetch span: 2026.
Identity provenance
Provider IDs
- Semantic Scholar:
3106683
ORCID evidence
No valid ORCID is stored.
Observed aliases (1)
- Natasha Jaques (semantic scholar, provider refresh)
Topics and outcomes in this view
Assessment themes
- Governance: 2 papers
- Human Ai Collab: 2 papers
- Org Design: 1 paper
Claim outcomes
- Ai Safety And Ethics: 1 paper
- Output Quality: 1 paper
- Adoption Rate: 1 paper
- Decision Quality: 1 paper
- Creativity: 1 paper
- Governance And Regulation: 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI built to optimize in isolation can undermine its own deployment by changing the environment; researchers should shift from capability-first design to institution-aware, cooperation‑centric systems and adaptive testbeds to preserve human agency and stable equilibria.arxiv | Natasha Jaques provider id |
2026-06-02 | 0 |
| Large language models subtly but systematically change what people mean when they write: heavy LLM users produce nearly 70% more neutral answers and report less creative, less ‘in‑their‑voice’ prose. When asked to revise human essays or write peer reviews, LLMs frequently alter semantics and give reviews that weight clarity/significance less and score papers roughly one point higher on average.arxiv | Natasha Jaques provider id |
2026-03-18 | 16 |
Citation observation summary
Semantic Scholar supplied counts for 2 of 2 papers in this view; 0 are missing. The observed paper counts sum to 16 cumulative citations. This is a coverage summary, not an author score or h-index.