Evidence (7953 claims)
Adoption
5539 claims
Productivity
4793 claims
Governance
4333 claims
Human-AI Collaboration
3326 claims
Labor Markets
2657 claims
Innovation
2510 claims
Org Design
2469 claims
Skills & Training
2017 claims
Inequality
1378 claims
Evidence Matrix
Claim counts by outcome category and direction of finding.
| Outcome | Positive | Negative | Mixed | Null | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | 402 | 112 | 67 | 480 | 1076 |
| Governance & Regulation | 402 | 192 | 122 | 62 | 790 |
| Research Productivity | 249 | 98 | 34 | 311 | 697 |
| Organizational Efficiency | 395 | 95 | 70 | 40 | 603 |
| Technology Adoption Rate | 321 | 126 | 73 | 39 | 564 |
| Firm Productivity | 306 | 39 | 70 | 12 | 432 |
| Output Quality | 256 | 66 | 25 | 28 | 375 |
| AI Safety & Ethics | 116 | 177 | 44 | 24 | 363 |
| Market Structure | 107 | 128 | 85 | 14 | 339 |
| Decision Quality | 177 | 76 | 38 | 20 | 315 |
| Fiscal & Macroeconomic | 89 | 58 | 33 | 22 | 209 |
| Employment Level | 77 | 34 | 80 | 9 | 202 |
| Skill Acquisition | 92 | 33 | 40 | 9 | 174 |
| Innovation Output | 120 | 12 | 23 | 12 | 168 |
| Firm Revenue | 98 | 34 | 22 | — | 154 |
| Consumer Welfare | 73 | 31 | 37 | 7 | 148 |
| Task Allocation | 84 | 16 | 33 | 7 | 140 |
| Inequality Measures | 25 | 77 | 32 | 5 | 139 |
| Regulatory Compliance | 54 | 63 | 13 | 3 | 133 |
| Error Rate | 44 | 51 | 6 | — | 101 |
| Task Completion Time | 88 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 100 |
| Training Effectiveness | 58 | 12 | 12 | 16 | 99 |
| Worker Satisfaction | 47 | 32 | 11 | 7 | 97 |
| Wages & Compensation | 53 | 15 | 20 | 5 | 93 |
| Team Performance | 47 | 12 | 15 | 7 | 82 |
| Automation Exposure | 24 | 22 | 9 | 6 | 62 |
| Job Displacement | 6 | 38 | 13 | — | 57 |
| Hiring & Recruitment | 41 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 54 |
| Developer Productivity | 34 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 42 |
| Social Protection | 22 | 10 | 6 | 2 | 40 |
| Creative Output | 16 | 7 | 5 | 1 | 29 |
| Labor Share of Income | 12 | 5 | 9 | — | 26 |
| Skill Obsolescence | 3 | 20 | 2 | — | 25 |
| Worker Turnover | 10 | 12 | — | 3 | 25 |
The paper identifies three core mechanisms underlying calibrated trust and complementarity: (1) calibrated trust balancing reliance and oversight, (2) complementarity–trust interaction for optimal performance, and (3) dynamic feedback loops producing reinforcing learning cycles.
Explicit identification of mechanisms claimed in the paper's synthesis; this is a descriptive claim about the paper's content rather than an empirical finding—no sample or empirical test reported in the abstract.
AI-adopting firms do not increase capital expenditures following adoption.
Firm-level capex analysis showing no significant change in capital expenditures for adopters versus nonadopters post-adoption in the paper's empirical framework.
It remains unclear how developers' general programming and security-specific experience, and the type of AI tool used (free vs. paid), affect the security of the resulting software — motivating this study.
Paper's stated research gap/motivation: the authors identify uncertainty in the literature regarding interactions between developer experience, AI tool tier (free vs. paid), and resulting code security.
Participants were assigned a security-related programming task using either no AI tools, the free version, or the paid version of Gemini.
Experimental design described in the paper: random/conditional assignment of participants into three groups (no AI, free Gemini, paid Gemini) performing the same security-related programming task.
We conducted a quantitative programming study with software developers (n = 159) exploring the impact of Google's AI tool Gemini on code security.
Explicit methodological statement in the paper: a quantitative study with 159 participating software developers assigned to experimental conditions to evaluate Gemini's impact on security-related programming tasks.
The authors surveyed workers and developers on a representative sample of 171 tasks and used language models (LMs) to scale ratings to 10,131 computer-assisted tasks across all U.S. occupations.
Study methodology reported in the paper: surveys of 'workers and developers' on 171 tasks, plus LM-based scaling to 10,131 tasks (coverage claims across U.S. occupations).
SWE-Skills-Bench is available at https://github.com/GeniusHTX/SWE-Skills-Bench.
Repository URL provided in the paper for the benchmark's code/data.
SWE-Skills-Bench provides a testbed for evaluating the design, selection, and deployment of skills in software engineering agents.
Benchmark design pairs skills, repositories, and deterministic verification tests; intended use stated by authors as a testbed for evaluation of skills.
39 of 49 skills yield zero pass-rate improvement.
Empirical evaluation over 49 skills and ~565 task instances reporting that 39 skills produced no improvement in test pass rate when injected.
The authors introduce a deterministic verification framework that maps each task's acceptance criteria to execution-based tests, enabling controlled paired evaluation with and without the skill.
Method: creation of a deterministic verification framework that converts acceptance criteria into executable tests; used to perform paired evaluations (with skill vs. without skill).
SWE-Skills-Bench pairs 49 public SWE skills with authentic GitHub repositories pinned at fixed commits and requirement documents with explicit acceptance criteria, yielding approximately 565 task instances across six SWE subdomains.
Benchmark construction: 49 public skills, repositories pinned to fixed commits, requirement documents with acceptance criteria, producing ~565 task instances spanning six SWE subdomains (as reported by the paper).
The article introduces a novel Bayesian Item Response Theory framework that quantifies human–AI synergy by separately estimating individual ability, collaborative ability, and AI model capability while controlling for task difficulty.
Methodological contribution described in the paper: development and application of a Bayesian Item Response Theory model that includes separate parameters for individual ability, collaborative ability, AI model capability, and task difficulty (method section of the paper).
The Planner is trained via Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) to internalize diagnostic capabilities and then aligned with business outcomes (conversion rate) via Reinforcement Learning (RL).
Method description in the paper specifying SFT initialization followed by RL alignment targeting conversion rate (UCVR) as reward signal.
EASP's Offline Data Synthesis stage: a Teacher Agent synthesizes diverse, execution-validated plans by diagnosing the probed environment.
Method description in the paper detailing the Teacher Agent's role in synthesizing execution-validated plans during offline data synthesis.
The Probe-then-Plan mechanism uses a lightweight Retrieval Probe to expose the retrieval snapshot, enabling the Planner to diagnose execution gaps and generate grounded search plans.
Methodological description in the paper: design and implementation of Retrieval Probe and Planner; validated through synthesized data and downstream evaluations (offline and online).
Descriptive statistics, reliability tests, regression analysis, and structural equation modelling (SEM) were employed to analyse the relationships between AI adoption and entrepreneurial outcomes.
Methods section reporting use of descriptive statistics, reliability tests, regression analysis, and SEM to evaluate relationships between AI adoption and measured outcomes.
The study used a quantitative research design and collected data from 350 entrepreneurs and managers of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) who had adopted AI in their business operations.
Methods section of the paper specifying a quantitative design and a sample size of 350 AI-adopting SME entrepreneurs/managers.
The study used portfolio-level analysis to compare the financial outcomes of portfolios constructed using AI-driven ESG indicators with those based on conventional ESG ratings.
Methodological statement in the paper: portfolio-level analysis and comparative design. The summary does not specify the number of portfolios, asset universes, time frame, or construction rules.
A quantitative methodology was employed, utilizing a structured questionnaire administered to 400 small business owners.
Explicit methodological statement in the paper: structured questionnaire survey with sample size N=400 small business owners.
The study uses a game-theoretic model involving a foundation model provider and two competing downstream firms to analyze how policy interventions affect consumer surplus in the AI supply chain.
Methodological description in the paper: a formal game-theoretic model with one upstream provider and two downstream competing firms; equilibrium analysis and comparative statics are performed on model outcomes (prices, qualities, profits, consumer surplus).
Foi realizada etnografia organizacional orientada ao SCF, com roteiro e triangulação de evidências.
Método qualitativo divulgado no resumo: etnografia organizacional com roteiro e triangulação; o resumo não fornece número de organizações, duração ou amostragem.
Foi construído e validado um instrumento psicométrico (escala SCF-30) e calculado um índice 0–100, com modelagem por Equações Estruturais (SEM) e testes de confiabilidade/validade.
Descrição metodológica explícita no resumo: construção e validação da escala SCF-30, uso de SEM e testes de confiabilidade e validade. O resumo não detalha estatísticas, amostra ou resultados numéricos.
O SCF é operacionalizado por três vetores centrais: Percepção de Complexidade (PC), Aversão ao Risco Institucional (AR) e Inércia Cultural (IC).
Estrutura conceitual e operacional apresentada no artigo; especificação explícita dos três vetores como componentes do construto SCF.
This research conducts a critical analysis of the ethical implications of artificial intelligence in terms of job displacement during the fifth industrial revolution.
Author-declared methodology: a literature-based critical analysis drawing on novel studies and the existing body of literature; no further methodological details (e.g., inclusion criteria, databases searched) provided in the excerpt.
This study uses panel data on agricultural firms listed on the Shanghai and Shenzhen A-share markets from 2007 to 2023 and applies a multidimensional fixed-effects model to estimate the impact of AI on firms’ total factor productivity (TFP).
Methodological statement in the paper: dataset = panel of listed agricultural firms (Shanghai and Shenzhen A-share markets), time period 2007–2023; empirical approach = multidimensional fixed-effects model.
Degree, betweenness, and eigenvector centrality metrics were used to identify structural vulnerabilities and leverage points in the construction supply chain network.
Paper reports calculation of degree, betweenness, and eigenvector centrality to outline vulnerabilities; specific metrics and interpretations are reported (e.g., degree centrality value for brokers).
Thematic coding translated reported interactions into nodes and edges of a complex network and grouped challenges into thematic categories.
Methods described: thematic coding applied to interview data to create network structure and to generate challenge categories (six main categories, 16 open codes reported).
This study combines empirical, semi-structured interviews with social network analytics to map construction supply chain relationships and vulnerabilities.
Methods reported in the paper: use of semi-structured interviews plus social network analysis (thematic coding to create nodes/edges, calculation of network metrics). Sample size not specified in the abstract.
Distinguishing between base models and fine-tuned systems is important for researchers using LLMs to study cultural patterns, because fine-tuning and alignment can change the behaviors relevant to behavioral research.
Analytical distinction and methodological guidance in the paper; claim grounded in conceptual reasoning about model development workflows rather than a specific experimental demonstration in the excerpt.
Contemporary artificial intelligence research has been organized around two dominant ambitions: productivity (treating AI systems as tools for accelerating work and economic output) and alignment (ensuring increasingly capable systems behave safely and in accordance with human values).
Literature synthesis and conceptual framing within the paper (review of prevailing research agendas and priorities in AI literature). No original empirical sample or experiment reported for this claim in the provided text.
This study analyzes comments and statements from party members in OECD countries from 2016 to 2025 through content analysis, examining media interviews, speeches, and debates.
Description of the study's data and method: content analysis of party member comments and statements drawn from media interviews, speeches, and debates across OECD countries over the 2016–2025 period (sample size and selection details not reported in the excerpt).
The study contributes to the literature by integrating evidence across higher education, vocational training, and lifelong learning to emphasize the need for balanced policy approaches to skill formation.
Stated contribution in the paper: cross-pathway synthesis of existing empirical evidence and secondary data (methods described as comparative synthesis; no primary empirical contribution reported in the summary).
The study uses secondary data and comparative evidence from prior empirical studies to analyze relationships between higher education, vocational education, and lifelong learning.
Stated methodology in the paper: analysis of secondary data and synthesis of prior empirical/comparative studies (no primary data collection; no sample sizes reported).
This study analyzed survey data from 466 Chinese food delivery riders using structural equation modeling and bootstrapping procedures, modeling work pressure as a mediator and perceived autonomy as a moderator.
Statement in abstract describing sample size (466 Chinese food delivery riders) and analytic approach (SEM and bootstrapping) and modeled variables (work pressure mediator, perceived autonomy moderator).
Drawing on leadership theory, emotional intelligence research and AI ethics informs the proposed framework.
Methodological/design statement in the paper describing its intellectual grounding; indicates literature-based synthesis rather than primary data collection.
The study uses topic modeling on a corpus of over 4,600 academic papers to identify the dominant themes in the economics of AI literature.
Unsupervised topic modeling applied to a compiled corpus of >4,600 papers (authors' described methodology and sample size).
The paper explores risk frameworks, ethical constraints, and policy imperatives related to AI.
Descriptive claim about the paper's analytic content (thematic/policy analysis); no empirical details or measurement approach are given in the abstract.
This paper investigates societal applications of AI across domains such as healthcare, education, accessibility, environmental management, emergency response, and civic administration.
Descriptive statement of the paper's scope and methods (literature review / cross-domain analysis implied); the abstract lists the domains but does not specify empirical procedures or sample sizes.
Chatbot suggestions were artificially varied in aggregate accuracy across treatment conditions from low (53%) to high (100%).
Paper describes experimental manipulation of chatbot suggestion accuracy with aggregate accuracies ranging from 53% to 100%; manipulation method (how suggestions were generated or sampled) described in methods (not fully detailed in excerpt).
Caseworkers in the control condition (no chatbot suggestions) had a mean accuracy of 49%.
Reported experimental outcome: mean accuracy for control group = 49%; based on the randomized experiment using the 770-question benchmark.
We conducted a randomized experiment with caseworkers recruited from nonprofit outreach organizations in Los Angeles.
Paper describes a randomized experiment recruiting caseworkers from nonprofit outreach organizations in Los Angeles; sample size and recruitment details not given in the excerpt.
The benchmark questions have corresponding expert-verified answers.
Paper states benchmark questions have expert-verified answers; verification method and number/credentials of experts not specified in the excerpt.
We created a 770-question multiple-choice benchmark dataset of difficult, but realistic questions that a caseworker might receive.
Paper reports creation of a benchmark dataset containing 770 multiple-choice questions described as difficult and realistic; questions and dataset construction described in methods (no sample-of-questions or external validation details provided in the excerpt).
The study's conclusions draw on three complementary evidence bases: (a) task-level evidence on what generative AI can already do in practice; (b) occupational exposure and complementarity analysis using Philippine labor force data; and (c) firm- and worker-level evidence on AI adoption.
Description of methods and data sources in the paper: task-level capability testing/assessment, analysis of national labor force/occupation data for exposure/complementarity, and firm/worker surveys or qualitative adoption evidence.
There is a need for more longitudinal and cross-country studies to better understand the long-term value creation of ERM in MSMEs.
Authors' conclusion and identified research gaps based on the scope and limitations of the existing literature reviewed (i.e., predominance of cross-sectional or single-country studies).
Extensive experiments were conducted using both synthetic and real hospital datasets to evaluate the framework.
Statement in the paper indicating experiments on synthetic and real datasets; exact sizes, sources, and composition of these datasets are not provided in the excerpt.
The paper explains the main legal frameworks that currently regulate AI in India, as well as proposals for future legislation.
Author's legal and policy analysis / document review of existing statutes and proposed laws (qualitative review). No quantitative sample size; based on review of legal texts and policy proposals cited in the article.
DDDM was quantified using AI language models, specifically BERT and ChatGLM2-6B.
Methodological description in the paper stating that BERT and ChatGLM2-6B were leveraged to quantify the extent of DDDM (implementation details, training/data specifics, and sample not provided in the excerpt).
A “macro approach” that (1) directly models equilibrium behavior of large employers, (2) combines macro data with empirical estimates of employers’ responses (from the micro approach) to estimate the model, and (3) uses the model to compute aggregate costs of monopsony and optimal policies, is the appropriate methodological response.
Methodological proposal set out by the paper; this is a description of the authors' recommended empirical/theoretical strategy rather than an empirical finding. The excerpt contains no implementation details, datasets, or estimation results.
The traditional theoretical and empirical “micro approach” to studying labor market power requires that firms are small and atomistic.
Conceptual/theoretical characterization of the micro approach stated by the paper; no empirical sample, dataset, or formal model provided in the excerpt.