Evidence (4892 claims)
Search and filter individual claims pulled from the papers. Looking for a specific finding ("what's the effect on wages?"), you're in the right place. Want to compare whole outcome categories against each other instead? Use the Evidence Explorer.
The board below groups claims two ways: by broad theme (nine paper-level topics) and by outcome category (the 34 claim-level outcomes that the Explorer and Syntheses also use).
Browse by theme
Nine broad, paper-level topics. Click one to filter the claims below.
Adoption
9875 claims
Filter claims →
Productivity
8807 claims
Filter claims →
Governance
7870 claims
Filter claims →
Human-AI Collaboration
7560 claims
Filter claims →
Org Design
4892 claims
Filtered →
Innovation
4781 claims
Filter claims →
Labor Markets
4004 claims
Filter claims →
Skills & Training
3308 claims
Filter claims →
Inequality
2332 claims
Filter claims →
Claims by outcome category
Counts by direction of finding. These are the same 34 outcome categories the Explorer compares and the Syntheses are written for. A linked row has a published synthesis.
| Outcome | Positive | Negative | Mixed | Null | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | 870 | 233 | 116 | 1066 | 2363 |
| Governance & Regulation | 976 | 451 | 218 | 133 | 1809 |
| Organizational Efficiency | 949 | 224 | 144 | 88 | 1416 |
| Technology Adoption Rate | 764 | 287 | 141 | 122 | 1325 |
| Research Productivity | 501 | 152 | 74 | 362 | 1101 |
| Output Quality | 542 | 216 | 69 | 69 | 896 |
| Decision Quality | 387 | 198 | 94 | 54 | 740 |
| Firm Productivity | 513 | 67 | 101 | 27 | 714 |
| AI Safety & Ethics | 249 | 303 | 73 | 36 | 667 |
| Market Structure | 190 | 192 | 134 | 27 | 548 |
| Task Allocation | 243 | 77 | 91 | 36 | 452 |
| Innovation Output | 291 | 33 | 55 | 20 | 401 |
| Skill Acquisition | 206 | 72 | 65 | 21 | 364 |
| Employment Level | 133 | 63 | 115 | 22 | 335 |
| Fiscal & Macroeconomic | 153 | 79 | 52 | 32 | 323 |
| Task Completion Time | 206 | 37 | 12 | 15 | 272 |
| Firm Revenue | 179 | 52 | 29 | 5 | 266 |
| Consumer Welfare | 130 | 76 | 47 | 13 | 266 |
| Inequality Measures | 48 | 137 | 51 | 6 | 242 |
| Worker Satisfaction | 101 | 81 | 25 | 13 | 220 |
| Error Rate | 84 | 110 | 11 | 5 | 210 |
| Wages & Compensation | 98 | 47 | 30 | 10 | 185 |
| Regulatory Compliance | 88 | 73 | 17 | 7 | 185 |
| Automation Exposure | 66 | 64 | 33 | 16 | 182 |
| Team Performance | 105 | 29 | 30 | 11 | 176 |
| Training Effectiveness | 109 | 22 | 14 | 21 | 168 |
| Developer Productivity | 114 | 21 | 14 | 8 | 158 |
| Job Displacement | 12 | 90 | 24 | 1 | 127 |
| Hiring & Recruitment | 57 | 9 | 9 | 5 | 80 |
| Skill Obsolescence | 6 | 56 | 9 | 1 | 72 |
| Social Protection | 43 | 17 | 8 | 2 | 70 |
| Creative Output | 35 | 21 | 9 | 4 | 70 |
| Labor Share of Income | 18 | 21 | 17 | 1 | 57 |
| Worker Turnover | 15 | 16 | — | 4 | 35 |
| Industry | — | — | — | 1 | 1 |
Org Design
Remove filter
Ungoverned coupling between humans and AI can produce fragility, lock-in, polarization, and domination basins.
Theoretical/modeling analysis showing destabilizing dynamics and multiple basins of attraction when governance regularization is absent or weak; no empirical sample.
Classical robot ethics framed around obedience (e.g. Asimov's laws) is too narrow for contemporary AI systems.
Literature synthesis and conceptual argument drawing on developments in adaptive, generative, embodied, and embedded AI; no empirical sample reported.
Industry digital maturity weakens the effect of the peer leader on a focal firm’s AI adoption.
Interaction/heterogeneity analysis in fixed-effects regression models on panel data of publicly listed Chinese firms (2012–2023), using an industry digital maturity moderator.
Current evaluation proxies are insufficient for predicting downstream human impact.
Empirical results in the paper showing decoupling between standard quantitative proxies (e.g., sparsity, faithfulness) and human outcomes (clarity, decision utility, confidence) across datasets and analyst reviews.
A highlighting policy that is optimal for sophisticated agents can perform arbitrarily poorly when deployed to naive agents.
Constructive worst-case examples and theoretical bounds in the paper demonstrating arbitrarily large performance degradation when applying sophisticated-optimal policies to naive agents.
Optimizing highlighting for sophisticated agents can be computationally intractable, even in simple discrete and binary settings.
Theoretical complexity results and proofs in the paper showing hardness of the optimization problem under the sophisticated-agent model; no sample/calibration required (formal/algorithmic analysis).
Ethical concerns—such as transparency, explainability, psychological effects, and responsible AI governance—are critical factors influencing employability outcomes.
Review synthesis highlighting ethical issues from empirical and industry literature as influential on employability outcomes.
There are significant AI adoption challenges in education and industry that affect employability and role transformation.
Synthesized evidence from industry reports and empirical studies discussed in the review highlighting barriers to adoption in education and industry.
The transformation toward algorithmic enterprises raises critical concerns regarding agency, accountability, data monopolization, and algorithmic bias.
Presented as a principal concern in the paper's conceptual discussion and interdisciplinary critique; based on analysis of governance and ethical literature rather than new empirical evidence in the abstract.
Industrial firms face a dual challenge: (1) the development and deployment of digital technologies and (2) the proliferation and integration of the corresponding skills portfolios.
Conceptual framing and literature synthesis presented in the paper (identification by authors); not tied to a specific quantitative sample in the provided text.
The study is framed based on Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) theory, positing that HAI-C task complexity is a job demand and AI self-efficacy/humble leadership act as resources that can mitigate negative effects on engagement.
Introduction states JD-R theory as the theoretical basis and describes job demands (HAI-C task complexity) and job/personal resources (humble leadership, AI self-efficacy) in the hypothesized model.
HAI-C tech-learning anxiety reduces employees' work engagement (serves as the mediator between HAI-C task complexity and work engagement).
Mediation analysis via hierarchical regression and bootstrapping on the three-wave survey sample of 497 employees; reported in Results as the mediating mechanism.
Human-AI collaboration task complexity (HAI-C task complexity) negatively affects employees' work engagement by amplifying their HAI-C tech-learning anxiety.
Three-wave longitudinal survey of matched data from 497 employees; mediation analysis using hierarchical regression and bootstrapping reported in the Results section.
Important boundary conditions include data maturity, process integration, governance discipline, and the degree of functional trust between finance and operating units.
List of boundary conditions reported in the paper based on documentary case analysis and synthesis with literature.
GenAI does not improve management accounting decision quality primarily by replacing managerial judgment.
Interpretive finding based on documentary analysis of disclosures from the three case firms and relevant literature; presented as a summary conclusion in the paper.
Beyond technical barriers there are organizational ones: a persistent AI literacy gap, cultural heterogeneity, and governance structures that have not yet caught up with agentic capabilities.
Interview data (over 30) reporting organizational challenges including limited AI literacy, diverse cultural attitudes across organizations, and lagging governance relative to agentic AI capabilities.
Adoption is constrained less by model capability than by fragmented and machine-unfriendly data, stringent security and regulatory requirements, and limited API-accessible legacy toolchains.
Stakeholder interviews (over 30) reporting barriers to deployment; qualitative synthesis identifies data fragmentation, security/regulatory requirements, and legacy toolchain access as primary constraints.
The value alignment problem for artificial intelligence (AI) is often framed as a purely technical or normative challenge, sometimes focused on hypothetical future systems.
Author's literature-based observation and critique in the paper's introduction (conceptual argument; no empirical sample reported).
Regulated deployment imposes four load-bearing systems properties — deterministic replay, auditable rationale, multi-tenant isolation, statelessness for horizontal scale — and stateful architectures violate them by construction.
Conceptual/architectural argument presented in the paper (theoretical analysis), not an empirical measurement in the abstract.
The policy and research challenge posed by platform-mediated automation is not merely job quantity (technological unemployment) but institutional continuity — how societies reproduce practical competence when platforms optimize for efficiency rather than formation.
Normative and conceptual claim developed through literature synthesis (institutional economics, platform governance, workforce development); presented as an analytical reframing rather than an empirically tested hypothesis.
Entry-level roles have historically functioned as apprenticeships in which workers acquire tacit knowledge and critical judgment; if platforms curtail these formative occupational layers, organizations may lack future workers capable of exercising contextual reasoning required to manage complex systems.
Institutional economics and workforce development literature cited in the paper; conceptual synthesis without original empirical measurement reported.
Platform-mediated automation risks hollowing out labor structures from both directions: eroding repetitive, junior roles from below and automating supervisory coordination functions from above.
Theoretical argument synthesizing institutional economics and platform literature; articulated as a conceptual risk rather than demonstrated with original empirical data.
Algorithmic systems are displacing routine tasks across both low-wage entry-level work and middle-management functions.
Stated in paper's argumentation; supported by a literature-based review drawing on platform governance literature and recent research on AI-enhanced automation (no original empirical sample or quantitative study reported).
Training data scarcity is an emerging challenge for organizations that aim to train proprietary LLMs.
Paper highlights training data scarcity as a challenge in its analysis and discussion sections (qualitative observation).
The infrastructure for cross-user agent collaboration is entirely absent, let alone the governance mechanisms needed to secure it.
Authoritative claim in paper framing the research gap; presented as observational/argumentative (no empirical audit reported).
Current AI agent frameworks have made remarkable progress in automating individual tasks, yet all existing systems serve a single user.
Statement in paper's introduction/positioning; conceptual survey-style claim (no empirical study or systematic benchmark reported).
As multimodal AI achieves human-parity understanding of speech and gesture, [the keyboard's] necessity dissolves.
Theoretical claim supported by multidisciplinary review (history, neuroscience, technology, organizational studies); no quantified empirical test reported.
Current session-based context handling (sessions ending, context windows filling, memory APIs returning flat facts) produces intelligence that is powerful per session but amnesiac across time.
Descriptive diagnostic argument in the paper; no empirical measurement reported in this text.
The paper identifies governance challenges such as accountability gaps, digital sovereignty risks, ethical pluralism, and strategic weaponization arising from embedding AI in diplomatic practice.
Conceptual and normative analysis section of the paper outlining risks and governance challenges; illustrated by examples and argumentation.
Thin training coverage fosters anxiety about substitution and slows diffusion of AI tools.
Reported associations from surveys of mid-level managers and technical staff, interviews, and document analysis across cases; thematic coding identified links between limited training, worker anxiety, and slower diffusion. (Sample size not reported.)
Agency in software engineering is primarily constrained by organizational policies rather than individual preferences.
Authors' synthesis of qualitative results across the ACTA/Delphi and task/review phases indicating organizational policy factors were cited as primary constraints.
The study identified significant implementation challenges including algorithmic bias, digital divide concerns, data privacy risks, and low technology readiness among HR teams in Tier 2 cities.
Synthesis of qualitative case study findings from 4 organizations plus survey responses (N=150) reporting barriers and risks encountered during adoption.
This condition of authorship uncertainty reshapes how teams attribute ideas, negotiate accountability, and coordinate collective reasoning.
Theoretical claim based on conceptual analysis in the paper; no empirical method or sample described in the abstract.
As generative AI becomes an ambient presence in collaborative work, a new social ambiguity emerges around authorship and responsibility.
Conceptual argument presented in the paper (theoretical/observational claim). No empirical method or sample size reported in the abstract.
Large language models remain confined to linguistic simulation rather than grounded understanding.
Conceptual assertion in the paper arguing limits of current models; no empirical tests or measurements reported.
Fluency is not reliability: without structures that stabilise both human and model reasoning, AI cannot be trusted or governed where it matters most.
Central thesis/claim of the paper; normative argument synthesising the paper's observations and proposals rather than an empirically tested finding provided here.
Humans often mistake fluency for reliability: when a model responds smoothly, users tend to trust it, even when both model and user are drifting together.
Behavioral/psychological assertion in the paper referencing human interaction patterns with fluent outputs; no experimental data or sample size reported in this paper excerpt.
LLMs produce fluent outputs even when their internal reasoning has drifted; a confident answer can conceal uncertainty, speculation, or inconsistency, and small changes in phrasing can lead to different conclusions.
Conceptual/observational claim presented in the paper; no original empirical test or sample size reported here.
Stronger reasoning capabilities do not prevent LLMs from defecting in single-shot social dilemmas (i.e., models defect with or without reasoning enabled).
Authors' experiments that explicitly compared model behavior with reasoning enabled vs disabled in single-shot social dilemmas; details not provided in the excerpt.
Repetition-induced cooperation deteriorates drastically when co-players vary.
Authors' experimental observation comparing repeated-game cooperation under fixed vs varying co-players in their study; no quantitative metrics or sample sizes provided in the excerpt.
Our experiments show that recent models — with or without reasoning enabled — consistently defect in single-shot social dilemmas.
Authors' experimental results comparing recent LLMs in single-shot social dilemma games, with reasoning enabled vs disabled; specific models, number of games, and sample sizes are not provided in the excerpt.
Recent works report that LLMs with stronger reasoning capabilities behave less cooperatively in mixed-motive games such as the prisoner's dilemma and public goods settings.
Statement referencing prior literature (recent works) summarized in the paper's introduction/background; no specific dataset or sample size given in the excerpt.
Efficiency (e.g., minimizing time and cost with AI-only planning) does not equal effectiveness: optimizing for efficiency can erode team cognition and reduce decision quality.
Synthesis of experimental quantitative results (time/cost vs. risk capture and rework) and qualitative assessment indicating that AI-driven efficiency can come at the expense of risk awareness and planning robustness.
Human-only planning incurs substantial overhead.
Same controlled experiment reporting that human-only planning produced higher time and cost overheads relative to AI-assisted approaches.
AI-only planning increases rework due to unstated assumptions.
Experiment measured rework rates and accompanying qualitative analysis attributing increased rework in the AI-only condition to unstated assumptions made by algorithmic planning.
AI-only planning significantly degrades risk capture rates.
Same controlled three-condition experiment on a live client deliverable; paper reports measures/qualitative indicators of risk capture rates and states degradation for AI-only condition.
Existing competition-aware CFL and incentive-design approaches reward organizations based on marginal training contributions but fail to account for the costs of strengthening competitors.
Literature critique and comparison in the paper; theoretical discussion rather than a reported empirical trial or sample.
Non-IID data amplifies this coopetition dilemma by producing asymmetric learning gains across organizations and undermining sustained participation.
Conceptual claim supported by the paper's theoretical modeling and later experiments (described as 'non-IID data' experiments); no numeric sample size given in abstract.
Cross-silo federated learning (CFL) deployments in data-sensitive domains are inherently coopetitive: organizations cooperate during model training while competing in downstream markets, so training contributions can inadvertently strengthen rivals.
Conceptual argument and literature motivation presented in the paper's introduction; no empirical sample size reported.
The study proposes an integrative conceptual model and research propositions highlighting cross-functional challenges in governance, organizational capabilities, socio-technical alignment, and responsible implementation.
Statement in abstract that the authors developed a conceptual model and research propositions based on their review and identified cross‑functional challenges.