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
We give two one-shot characterizations, a team optimum and a behaviorally natural myopic rule.
Analytical derivation in the one-shot contextual-bandit game producing two solution concepts/characterizations: the team-optimal policy and a myopic human-rule; presented as theoretical results with formal statements in the paper.
We close by sketching the shape of a harmonised tiered framework and the empirical evaluation needed to calibrate it.
Statement of the paper's concluding contribution in the abstract: a proposed harmonised framework and recommended empirical evaluation; presented as a proposal rather than tested result.
From this we derive a six-dimensional taxonomy (disclosure, responsibility, human oversight, licensing, enforcement, maintainer workload), an ordinal Policy Maturity Score, and a mapping of documented agent incidents onto the dimensions each policy fails to govern.
Stated as study outputs in abstract; indicates development of taxonomy, maturity score, and incident-to-dimension mapping based on the comparative analysis and process tracing.
We compare policies across six organisations (SymPy, LLVM, matplotlib, OpenInfra, the Apache Software Foundation, and the Linux Foundation) using Most-Similar Systems Design with indicator-based coding and process tracing for SymPy and LLVM.
Explicit methods statement in abstract describing sample (six organisations) and methods (Most-Similar Systems Design, indicator-based coding, process tracing for two organisations).
Open-source software, however, evolves through a process designed for humans: contributor agreements, codes of conduct, and review norms all assume a legally accountable person who can attest to provenance and answer reviewer questions.
Descriptive claim about standard open-source governance and contribution processes stated in the abstract; no empirical measurement or coded sample cited in the abstract.
We run a pre-specified 2*4 factorial experiment with 280 complete research runs across four datasets.
Experimental design and sample size reported in paper: 2x4 factorial experiment, 280 complete research runs, four datasets.
We evaluated seven models (including Gemini, Claude, and GPT families) by comparing their zero-shot estimates against self-reported skill ratings from 27 participants.
Method description: evaluation of seven LLMs comparing zero-shot model estimates to self-reported skill ratings; 27 participants provided self-reports.
AI deployment should be evaluated not only by average task speed, but by its overall effects on congestion, rework, and the robustness of human oversight under load.
Policy/recommendation based on the paper's theoretical results and derived implications from the queueing model (conceptual/prescriptive conclusion; no empirical testing reported).
The divergence between mean task speed and system-level delay caused by AI assistance is labeled the 'variance wedge'.
Definition/terminology introduced in the paper as part of its conceptual framing; supported by the analytic model description.
Structured illustrations across document processing, legal services, audit, clinical decision support, and procurement discipline the boundary logic developed in the theory.
Methodological statement that the paper uses structured cross-domain illustrations to ground and discipline the theoretical claims; no empirical sample reported.
There are three accountability-boundary strategies in agentic ecosystems: component, integrated, and dual-track.
Theoretical categorization introduced by the authors as part of the capability-level theory; illustrated with cross-domain examples rather than empirical testing.
The paper provides a taxonomy of minimum input artifacts for agentic software, firmware, and hardware work; a conversation-to-contract gate; risk-adaptive workflows; and an evidence-bundle acceptance model for agent-generated artifacts.
Declared contributions in the paper (deliverables/artefacts produced by the research; no empirical validation provided in the abstract).
The central problem for agentic engineering is no longer prompt engineering; it is engineering process control.
Argument and synthesis presented by the paper (conceptual claim based on reviewed evidence).
Regulatory technology is viewed as a governance arrangement that organizes relations between firms, banks, insurers, logistics actors, buyers, and regulators.
Conceptual framing developed through the interpretive synthesis of multiple literature streams in the paper.
The framework reframes the central question of autonomous software engineering from whether a foundation model can produce a patch to whether the model-harness-environment system can produce a verifiably correct, attributed, and maintainable change.
Conceptual reframing and argument presented in the abstract as a conclusion of the proposed framework and evaluation approach.
We formalize this substrate as 'AI Harness Engineering' and identify eleven component responsibilities: task specification, context selection, tool access, project memory, task state, observability, failure attribution, verification, permissions, entropy auditing, and intervention recording.
Methodological/conceptual contribution described in the paper (abstract) that lists eleven component responsibilities as part of the formalization.
We position DAO-governed decentralized physical infrastructure networks (DePIN) within a vertically integrated stack that links energy and sensing to connectivity, storage/compute, models, and robots.
Architectural/framework description in the paper that maps DePIN elements into a vertically integrated stack; conceptual/mapping method without empirical measurement.
We evaluate four mechanisms to enable cooperation: (1) repeating the game for many rounds, (2) reputation systems, (3) third-party mediators to delegate decision making to, and (4) contract agreements for outcome-conditional payments between players.
Description of experimental design / mechanisms evaluated in the study across four social dilemmas; details on implementation and sample sizes not provided in the excerpt.
CoCoGen+ formulates each training round as a weighted potential game in which organizations strategically decide how much synthetic data to generate by balancing learning performance gains against computational costs and competition-caused utility losses.
Theoretical formulation and game-theoretic modeling provided in the paper (analytical derivation); no empirical sample size reported.
Legitimate accountability is axiomatized through four minimal properties: Attributability (responsibility requires causal contribution), Foreseeability Bound (responsibility cannot exceed predictive capacity), Non-Vacuity (at least one agent bears non-trivial responsibility), and Completeness (all responsibility must be fully allocated).
Paper presents an explicit axiomatization listing these four properties as definitions/axioms forming the normative criteria for legitimate accountability.
Collective behaviour is characterised through interaction graphs and joint action spaces.
Paper specifies interaction graphs and joint action spaces as part of the formal model (definitions and formal structure).
Autonomy is characterised through a four-dimensional information-theoretic profile (epistemic, executive, evaluative, social).
Paper defines autonomy as a 4-dimensional information-theoretic profile (conceptual/mathematical definition within the formal model).
A life insurance system integrated into an industry partner mobile app was tested in two experiments.
Paper reports two experiments running the ARQuest-enabled life insurance system inside a partner mobile app; experimental setup is stated though sample sizes are not provided in the excerpt.
The paper's formalism shows that prompt/system messages shape distributions over possible execution paths (indirect control) but do not evaluate actual partial paths at runtime.
Formal mapping in the paper that treats prompts as shaping prior over paths; conceptual argument and illustrative examples.
Through a thematic review of existing research, the authors identified recurring themes about incentive schemes: their components, how researchers manipulate them, and their impact on research outcomes.
Authors' stated method and findings: thematic review (the scope/number of reviewed papers not specified in excerpt).
A critical aspect of conducting human–AI decision-making studies is the role of participants, often recruited through crowdsourcing platforms.
Claim based on the authors' thematic literature review noting participant sourcing practices (specific studies and counts not given in excerpt).
Researchers conduct empirical studies investigating how humans use AI assistance for decision-making and how this collaboration impacts results.
Statement summarizing the research landscape; supported implicitly by the authors' thematic review of existing empirical studies (number of studies not specified in excerpt).
Returns to AI are heterogeneous across firms; estimating treatment effects requires attention to selection, complementarities, and dynamic adoption pipelines.
Methodological argument referencing treatment-effect literature and observed firm heterogeneity; supported by conceptual examples rather than a single empirical treatment-effect estimate.
Productivity effects at the aggregate (economy-wide) level are delayed relative to firm-level gains.
Cross-study synthesis noting temporal lags between observed firm-level productivity improvements and measurable aggregate effects in the literature included in the SLR.
The review followed the PRISMA protocol and synthesized 78 peer-reviewed studies and institutional reports published between 2015 and 2025.
Systematic Literature Review using PRISMA protocol; sample of 78 peer-reviewed studies and institutional reports (2015–2025) as described in the paper.
The study is theoretically anchored in Diffusion of Innovation Theory and the Tigre–Henriques–Curado model of digital leadership.
Theoretical framing described in the paper's introduction/methods (explicit mention of the two theoretical anchors).
Analysis was performed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (WarpPLS 8.0).
Methods statement reporting use of WarpPLS 8.0 PLS-SEM for hypothesis tests and mediation/moderation estimation on the collected survey data (306 valid responses).
Delivery-related digital leadership capabilities did not significantly affect AI adoption intention (β = 0.090, p = 0.057).
PLS-SEM path coefficient and p-value reported for delivery-related capability to AI adoption intention (β = 0.090; p = 0.057), based on the 306 responses.
The measurement instruments demonstrated acceptable reliability and convergent validity: Cronbach's α ranged from 0.69 to 0.84, composite reliability from 0.83 to 0.88, and AVE from 0.56 to 0.67.
Reported scale reliability and validity statistics (Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability, Average Variance Extracted) computed on the study sample (306 responses).
A cross-sectional survey of owner-managers of registered SMEs was drawn from six states; a sample of 390 was derived from a population of 23,290 firms using the Taro Yamane formula with proportionate allocation, and 306 valid responses were retained.
Study sampling and data collection description in the paper's methods: population size stated as 23,290, sampling via Taro Yamane formula (proportionate allocation) yielding 390, with 306 valid survey responses retained.
The paper formulates a sequence of theoretically based propositions describing how the main constructs of the framework are related and what the main boundary conditions are that determine their applicability in digitally interrelated markets.
Presentation of conceptual propositions and delineation of boundary conditions within the paper; no empirical testing or datasets reported.
Existing literature has examined separate aspects (AI capabilities, platform ecosystems, data-driven strategies, and network effects) but has not focused on how these various concepts relate to one another.
Author's literature review and conceptual synthesis presented in the introduction; no systematic review details or empirical bibliometric analysis reported.
An undirected configuration change in a prior iteration produced zero impact, illustrating the cost of iterating without diagnosis.
Reported observation from an earlier iteration in the case study where a non-diagnostic change had no measurable effect.
The paper combines findings from information systems research, organizational behavior studies, and artificial intelligence literature through its analysis of recent empirical and theoretical studies conducted between 2021 and 2026.
Methodological description provided in the paper (literature synthesis covering 2021–2026).
We observe no differences in productivity across adoption levels.
Authors' empirical comparison reporting null differences in measured firm productivity across adoption categories (based on their matched data).
We observe no differences in capex across adoption levels.
Authors' empirical comparison reporting null differences in capital expenditures across adoption categories (based on firm financial data matched to adoption measure).
The study used a sequential mixed-methods design (Qual → Quan) consisting of eight expert interviews analyzed with grounded-theory coding and a follow-up survey of 499 AI-aware consumers.
Methods reported in the paper: eight expert interviews (qualitative) and a survey with 499 respondents (quantitative).
From that coded sample the authors built a causal model of 26 constructs and 67 relationships (64 directed, 3 contested).
Reported model construction from the coded sample as stated in the abstract.
The authors filtered that corpus and coded a stratified random sample of 3,100 documents with an LLM-assisted pipeline.
Reported sampling and coding procedure stated in the abstract.
We collected 38,709 grey-literature documents (engineering blogs and Reddit threads) and filtered to those substantively about code review.
Reported data-collection procedure and corpus size stated in the abstract.
We isolate the orchestration layer with a controlled swap: 22 locked evaluation tasks, six foundation models, changing only the orchestration layer (a frozen conventional production loop versus the Writer Agent Harness).
Methodological statement describing experimental design reported in the paper: controlled swap with 22 tasks and six models.
Task-completion quality is at parity between harness and baseline (0.78->0.81), directional at this sample size.
Reported average/directional quality scores from the controlled swap across 22 tasks and six models, showing scores 0.78 (baseline) and 0.81 (harness).
The periodization of US macroeconomic productivity cycles was refined by identifying the new stages 'pandemic and adaptation phase' and 'artificial intelligence phase'.
Calculation of AAPC indices for 1947–2025 and retrospective comparative analysis leading to refinement of periodization and naming of new stages.
Eight distinct macroeconomic cycles of productivity change in the United States from 1947 to 2025 are identified.
Secondary data analysis of aggregated US Bureau of Labor Statistics series for 1947–2025; long-term average annual rates of productivity change (AAPC) computed using the index method and geometric mean growth rate; comparative analysis to identify cycle breaks.
Survey data were collected from firms located in major Chinese cities (Beijing, Shenzhen, Xi’an, and Zhengzhou), resulting in 750 valid responses for analysis.
Reported survey sampling and data collection in the paper; explicit statement of cities sampled and number of valid responses (750).