Evidence (7278 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
9047 claims
Filter claims →
Productivity
8066 claims
Filter claims →
Governance
7278 claims
Filtered →
Human-AI Collaboration
6912 claims
Filter claims →
Org Design
4439 claims
Filter claims →
Innovation
4359 claims
Filter claims →
Labor Markets
3652 claims
Filter claims →
Skills & Training
3018 claims
Filter claims →
Inequality
2160 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 | 795 | 210 | 105 | 955 | 2131 |
| Governance & Regulation | 886 | 414 | 197 | 126 | 1654 |
| Organizational Efficiency | 826 | 204 | 129 | 87 | 1257 |
| Technology Adoption Rate | 681 | 259 | 128 | 110 | 1189 |
| Research Productivity | 464 | 138 | 65 | 349 | 1028 |
| Output Quality | 503 | 196 | 61 | 53 | 813 |
| Decision Quality | 351 | 180 | 84 | 51 | 673 |
| AI Safety & Ethics | 238 | 288 | 71 | 34 | 637 |
| Firm Productivity | 455 | 58 | 92 | 20 | 631 |
| Market Structure | 186 | 172 | 123 | 25 | 511 |
| Task Allocation | 222 | 70 | 76 | 34 | 407 |
| Innovation Output | 238 | 28 | 48 | 18 | 334 |
| Skill Acquisition | 177 | 62 | 62 | 17 | 318 |
| Employment Level | 107 | 57 | 108 | 13 | 287 |
| Fiscal & Macroeconomic | 135 | 72 | 44 | 26 | 284 |
| Firm Revenue | 172 | 50 | 28 | 5 | 256 |
| Consumer Welfare | 121 | 68 | 45 | 12 | 246 |
| Task Completion Time | 183 | 33 | 10 | 13 | 240 |
| Inequality Measures | 45 | 126 | 50 | 6 | 227 |
| Worker Satisfaction | 95 | 74 | 23 | 12 | 204 |
| Error Rate | 77 | 98 | 11 | 4 | 190 |
| Regulatory Compliance | 84 | 73 | 17 | 7 | 181 |
| Automation Exposure | 61 | 61 | 27 | 14 | 166 |
| Training Effectiveness | 98 | 21 | 14 | 19 | 154 |
| Wages & Compensation | 78 | 37 | 25 | 6 | 146 |
| Developer Productivity | 105 | 18 | 14 | 6 | 144 |
| Team Performance | 87 | 17 | 28 | 10 | 143 |
| Job Displacement | 12 | 83 | 23 | 1 | 119 |
| Hiring & Recruitment | 53 | 8 | 8 | 3 | 72 |
| Social Protection | 39 | 17 | 8 | 2 | 66 |
| Creative Output | 32 | 20 | 8 | 3 | 64 |
| Skill Obsolescence | 5 | 50 | 6 | 1 | 62 |
| Labor Share of Income | 17 | 20 | 17 | — | 54 |
| Worker Turnover | 15 | 15 | — | 3 | 33 |
| Industry | — | — | — | 1 | 1 |
Governance
Remove filter
Biological DNA mutations are random and approximately reversible, but descendant design in AIs will be strongly directed (so standard biological evolutionary models are not appropriate).
Analytic comparison and conceptual argument in the paper; replacement of random-mutation assumptions with a directed tree model of possible AI programs (theoretical discussion and model construction).
Injecting generic green language into prompts has no reliable effect.
Controlled prompting experiments reported in the benchmark comparing prompts with 'generic green language' to other prompt types; claim of no reliable effect on measured footprint (no numerical statistics given in abstract).
This paper has been accepted at PEARC 2026.
Statement in the paper indicating conference acceptance.
The University's GIS Center Ecological Archive (849 curated datasets) serves as a single-agent baseline deployment of EnviSmart.
Reported deployment dataset count provided in the paper: 849 curated datasets used as a single-agent baseline.
The governance calibration problem — balancing control with the autonomy that gives agentic AI its value — emerges as the STS joint optimization challenge: governance must simultaneously enable and constrain autonomous operation.
Authors' synthesis and theoretical claim based on STS analysis and identified tensions between autonomy benefits and control needs in the literature.
Agentic AI transformation barriers constitute an interdependent sociotechnical system rather than isolated obstacles.
Interpretive conclusion drawn from STS mapping and cross-barrier interaction analysis across the reviewed literature.
Governance serves as the social subsystem's primary mechanism for managing the technical subsystem.
Interpretation from STS analysis in the review: authors identify governance as the key social mechanism constraining/enabling technical subsystem behavior.
STS mapping based on root-cause analysis revealed that 12 barriers originate in the technical subsystem and 17 in the social subsystem.
Authors' STS mapping of the 29 barriers to subsystem origins (technical vs. social) as derived from their root-cause analysis of the coded literature.
Twenty-nine barriers were identified and classified into five dimensions: technological (7), organizational (7), human (6), governance and regulatory (4), and economic (5).
Results of inductive coding of the 30-source literature corpus yielding 29 distinct barriers and reported counts per dimension.
Sociotechnical Systems (STS) theory was applied as an interpretive lens to map dimensions onto social and technical subsystems and analyze cross-subsystem interactions.
Self-reported analytic approach: application of STS theory to the coded barriers to map origins and interactions across subsystems.
Barriers were identified inductively through open and axial coding.
Self-reported qualitative method: inductive thematic analysis using open and axial coding on the literature corpus.
A critical narrative literature review of 30 sources (2019–2026) was conducted.
Self-reported study method: critical narrative literature review; sample_size = 30 sources published between 2019 and 2026.
As advanced artificial systems become more autonomous participants in these processes, the resulting interaction space begins to resemble a new kind of ecosystem in which diverse agents exchange information, cooperate, compete, and jointly explore complex adaptive landscapes.
Conceptual argument presented in the paper drawing on theories of adaptive systems and collective intelligence; no empirical test or dataset reported.
Human and artificial agents are increasingly interacting within a shared informational environment that shapes economic activity, scientific discovery, governance, and collective decision making.
Statement in paper's introduction; based on observational/phenomenological claim and citation-less framing (conceptual assertion rather than empirical analysis). No sample or empirical method reported.
Conventional microeconomic models often treat interactions between algorithmic platforms and workers as static principal-agent problems.
Literature statement in paper (conceptual framing / literature review); no empirical sample reported.
We evaluate APEX across three baselines and six scenarios using sample sizes 2–4x larger than initial experiments (N=20–40 per scenario).
Experimental design statement in the paper (three baselines, six scenarios, reported N range of 20–40 per scenario).
The HTTP 402 protocol treats payment as a first-class protocol event, but most implementations rely on cryptocurrency rails.
Descriptive claim in the paper about the state of HTTP 402 and common implementations (literature/implementation survey-style claim in paper).
The study sample comprises 21,428 firm-year observations from Chinese A-share listed manufacturing companies over 2010–2022.
Data description provided in the paper's abstract/introduction specifying the sample frame and time period.
The paper characterizes the symmetric Nash equilibrium in a preemption game of competing frontier-AI firms.
Analytic game-theoretic model and equilibrium derivations presented in the paper (formal characterization/propositions).
The study is based on a qualitative analysis of recent academic literature, comparative analysis of sector-specific applications of Big Data technologies, and synthesis of empirical findings from international studies using a systemic and structural analysis approach.
Methodological statement within the paper describing data sources and analytic approach; not an empirical claim about outcomes.
The research documents a transition in the literature (2013–2025) from early 'risk-of-automation' evaluations toward task-based and firm-level econometric models.
Literature review/synthesis across the 2013–2025 body of research as described in the paper.
The review employed a systematic analysis of multidisciplinary studies (qualitative, quantitative, and bibliometric) focused on agentic AI technologies in financial domains, covering literature published up to mid-2024.
Stated methodology of the paper (systematic review description).
The cross-sectional, self-reported survey design prevents strong causal claims about the effect of algorithms or selective exposure on polarization.
Authors explicitly note methodological limitations: cross-sectional survey of N = 450, reliance on self-reported consumption, and lack of platform log or longitudinal/experimental data.
Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, konseptual, dan komparatif, didukung oleh analisis literatur dari jurnal nasional terindeks SINTA dan jurnal internasional bereputasi.
Pernyataan metode yang jelas tercantum dalam abstrak/metodologi makalah.
Penelitian menilai kecukupan perlindungan hukum yang tersedia bagi pekerja terdampak PHK akibat adopsi AI.
Pernyataan tujuan penelitian dan pendekatan analitis (normatif, komparatif) yang didukung oleh tinjauan literatur pada jurnal-jurnal terpilih.
Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis bagaimana Undang-Undang Cipta Kerja dan peraturan turunannya mengklasifikasikan dan menjustifikasi Pemutusan Hubungan Kerja (PHK) akibat adopsi AI.
Pernyataan tujuan penelitian yang tercantum di bagian metodologi/pendahuluan; pendekatan peraturan-perundang-undangan dalam penelitian hukum normatif.
The paper frames the LLM-politician relationship through principal-agent theory and bounded rationality, conceptualizing the legislator as a principal delegating advisory tasks to a boundedly rational agent under structural information asymmetry.
Explicit theoretical framing described in the introduction or theory section of the paper.
Model outputs were evaluated using a dual framework combining LLM-as-Judge semantic scoring and programmatic text similarity metrics.
Paper describes the evaluation methodology: semantic scoring via LLM-as-Judge plus programmatic text similarity measures applied to model-generated rationales vs official memoranda.
Six LLMs were evaluated: GPT-5-mini, GPT-5-chat (OpenAI), Claude Haiku 4.5 (Anthropic), and Llama 4 Maverick, Llama 3.3 70B, Llama 3.1 8B (Meta).
Paper explicitly lists the six evaluated models spanning three provider families and multiple capability tiers.
The study uses a dataset of 15 Romanian Senate law proposals paired with their official explanatory memoranda (expuneri de motive).
Explicit statement in the paper describing the dataset composition: 15 Romanian Senate law proposals each paired with its official explanatory memorandum.
The present review examined the intersection of artificial intelligence, sustainable finance, ESG performance, FinTech, climate risk analytics, algorithmic governance, and responsible investing.
Statement of the paper's scope and aims (description of the review content and topics covered).
The literature on AI-based ESG scoring, green finance, and data-driven sustainability reporting is disjointed across finance, management, and technology fields and requires application of the PRISMA framework to provide transparency and methodological rigor in systematic reviews.
Paper's methodological assessment and recommendation based on the authors' systematic review process and literature mapping (statement about the state of the literature and methodological needs). No numeric evidence provided in the excerpt.
The analysis draws on data from 170 countries for 2020–2024 for the Government AI Readiness Index (GAIRI)–EGDI comparison.
Data description in abstract explicitly reporting the GAIRI–EGDI sample coverage as 170 countries for 2020–2024.
The analysis draws on data from 36 countries for 2018–2022 for the AI Vibrancy Score (AIVS)–EGDI comparison.
Data description in abstract explicitly reporting the AIVS–EGDI sample coverage as 36 countries for 2018–2022.
The Article translates these insights into risk-sensitive guideposts for modernizing governance of AI-enabled tools and emerging modalities, from agentic systems to blockchain-deployed smart contracts.
Prescriptive/conceptual policy guidance presented in the Article (normative recommendations; governance framework).
The Innovation Frontier traces LegalTech’s evolution from 2000s-vintage e-discovery to generative AI.
Historical/chronological analysis in the Article (literature review/history of LegalTech provided by authors).
The Legal Services Value Chain disaggregates the lifecycle of a legal matter into five distinct nodes of activity.
Model description in the Article (conceptual architecture; decomposition of legal work).
The Article develops two core organizing models: the Legal Services Value Chain and the Innovation Frontier.
Explicit claim in the Article describing conceptual/model contributions (theoretical/model-building).
This Article provides a practical framework for navigating the shifting terrain of legal innovation and AI.
Statement of purpose in the Article (conceptual contribution; framework development). No empirical validation reported in the excerpt.
There are action tools for higher-stakes tasks like financial transactions.
Observed examples of action tools in the monitored MCP repositories that perform higher-stakes functions, with financial transactions given as an explicit example in the paper.
We use O*NET mapping to identify each tool's task domain and consequentiality.
Method described in paper: mapping each tool to O*NET task domains and consequentiality using the monitored tool metadata and descriptions.
We categorise tools according to their direct impact: perception tools to access and read data, reasoning tools to analyse data or concepts, and action tools to directly modify external environments.
Methodological classification described in paper (taxonomy of tools into perception, reasoning, action); applied to monitored MCP server dataset.
The research surveys current methodologies and empirical evidence related to regulatory early-warning systems and desegregates (synthesizes) findings from empirical information.
Paper states it examines existing methodologies and empirical findings (literature review / synthesis); no scope (e.g., number of studies reviewed) given in the excerpt.
The study uses a mixed-methods approach combining qualitative insights from 1,500 semi-structured customer interviews with quantitative analysis of transaction records, loan repayment histories, and account activity.
Paper states methods explicitly in abstract: 1,500 semi-structured interviews plus quantitative analysis of transaction records, loan repayment histories, and account activity (case-study approach across three platforms).
The paper is intentionally public-safe: it omits proprietary implementation details, training recipes, thresholds, hidden-state instrumentation, deployment procedures, and confidential system design choices, and therefore the contribution is theoretical rather than operational.
Statement about the paper's scope and publication choices; directly asserted by the authors regarding omitted content and the theoretical nature of the contribution.
The paper introduces a constraint-coupled reasoning framework with four elements: bounded transition burden, path-load accumulation, dynamically evolving feasible regions, and a capability-stability coupling condition.
Descriptive/theoretical: the paper explicitly defines and enumerates these four framework elements. This is a claim about the paper's content rather than an empirical finding.
The frequency of manipulative behaviours (propensity) of an AI model is not consistently predictive of the likelihood of manipulative success (efficacy), underscoring the importance of studying these dimensions separately.
Analytic results reported in the study comparing model propensity (how often manipulative outputs are produced) with measures of success (induced belief/behavior changes), finding inconsistent or weak association.
For readers less familiar with the Bayesian and decision-theoretic language, key terms are defined in a glossary at the end of the article.
Statement about the article's structure and supporting material (presence of glossary noted in the article).
The gap between a continuously updated belief state and your frozen deployed model is 'learning debt.'
Terminology/definition introduced by the author in the article (glossary and definitional exposition).
Model retraining is usually treated as an ongoing maintenance task.
Author's descriptive claim in the article; presented as an observation about prevailing practice (no empirical sample or data reported).