Evidence (2340 claims)
Adoption
5267 claims
Productivity
4560 claims
Governance
4137 claims
Human-AI Collaboration
3103 claims
Labor Markets
2506 claims
Innovation
2354 claims
Org Design
2340 claims
Skills & Training
1945 claims
Inequality
1322 claims
Evidence Matrix
Claim counts by outcome category and direction of finding.
| Outcome | Positive | Negative | Mixed | Null | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | 378 | 106 | 59 | 455 | 1007 |
| Governance & Regulation | 379 | 176 | 116 | 58 | 739 |
| Research Productivity | 240 | 96 | 34 | 294 | 668 |
| Organizational Efficiency | 370 | 82 | 63 | 35 | 553 |
| Technology Adoption Rate | 296 | 118 | 66 | 29 | 513 |
| Firm Productivity | 277 | 34 | 68 | 10 | 394 |
| AI Safety & Ethics | 117 | 177 | 44 | 24 | 364 |
| Output Quality | 244 | 61 | 23 | 26 | 354 |
| Market Structure | 107 | 123 | 85 | 14 | 334 |
| Decision Quality | 168 | 74 | 37 | 19 | 301 |
| Fiscal & Macroeconomic | 75 | 52 | 32 | 21 | 187 |
| Employment Level | 70 | 32 | 74 | 8 | 186 |
| Skill Acquisition | 89 | 32 | 39 | 9 | 169 |
| Firm Revenue | 96 | 34 | 22 | — | 152 |
| Innovation Output | 106 | 12 | 21 | 11 | 151 |
| Consumer Welfare | 70 | 30 | 37 | 7 | 144 |
| Regulatory Compliance | 52 | 61 | 13 | 3 | 129 |
| Inequality Measures | 24 | 68 | 31 | 4 | 127 |
| Task Allocation | 75 | 11 | 29 | 6 | 121 |
| Training Effectiveness | 55 | 12 | 12 | 16 | 96 |
| Error Rate | 42 | 48 | 6 | — | 96 |
| Worker Satisfaction | 45 | 32 | 11 | 6 | 94 |
| Task Completion Time | 78 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 89 |
| Wages & Compensation | 46 | 13 | 19 | 5 | 83 |
| Team Performance | 44 | 9 | 15 | 7 | 76 |
| Hiring & Recruitment | 39 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 52 |
| Automation Exposure | 18 | 17 | 9 | 5 | 50 |
| Job Displacement | 5 | 31 | 12 | — | 48 |
| Social Protection | 21 | 10 | 6 | 2 | 39 |
| Developer Productivity | 29 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 36 |
| Worker Turnover | 10 | 12 | — | 3 | 25 |
| Skill Obsolescence | 3 | 19 | 2 | — | 24 |
| Creative Output | 15 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 24 |
| Labor Share of Income | 10 | 4 | 9 | — | 23 |
Org Design
Remove filter
Outcomes reported are primarily self-reported psychological measures rather than objective productivity metrics.
Paper reports measurement instruments focused on self-reported self-efficacy, psychological ownership, meaningfulness, and enjoyment/satisfaction; no primary objective productivity metrics reported.
The experiment was pre-registered, used occupation-specific writing tasks, and employed a between-subjects design with three conditions (No-AI, Passive AI, Active collaboration).
Study design reported in the paper: pre-registration statement, N = 269, between-subjects assignment to three conditions using occupation-specific writing tasks.
Active, collaborative AI use preserves perceived meaningfulness of work at levels comparable to independent work and does not produce the lasting psychological costs seen with passive use.
Pre-registered experiment (N = 269) with post-manipulation and post-return measures; Active-collaboration condition matched No-AI on meaningfulness and showed no persistent declines after returning to manual tasks.
Active, collaborative AI use preserves psychological ownership of outputs at levels comparable to independent work.
Pre-registered experiment (N = 269); Active-collaboration condition reported ownership levels similar to No-AI condition on self-report scales.
Active, collaborative AI use (human drafts first, then uses AI to refine) preserves self-efficacy at levels comparable to independent (no-AI) work.
Pre-registered experiment (N = 269) comparing Active-collaboration and No-AI conditions; no statistically meaningful differences in self-efficacy between them (self-reported measures).
The authors propose research priorities for economists: quantify productivity gains from closing the actionability gap; estimate firm-level heterogeneity in evaluation capability and its effect on adoption; and model investment trade-offs between building evaluation-to-action pipelines versus accepting reduced LLM performance.
Paper's concluding recommendations for future research directions (explicitly listed by the authors).
The paper produces as primary outcomes a taxonomy of ten evaluation practices, the articulation of the results-actionability gap, and recommended strategies observed among successful teams.
Authors report these as the main outcomes of their thematic analysis and syntheses from the 19 interviews.
The study method consisted of semi-structured qualitative interviews with 19 practitioners across multiple industries and roles, analyzed via thematic coding.
Explicit methods section of the paper stating sample size (n=19), participant diversity, interview approach, and coding/analysis procedure.
The analysis used sentence‑transformer models to produce dense vector representations of article text and UMAP to project those embeddings into a low‑dimensional thematic map for cluster identification and gap detection.
Methods section specifying use of sentence‑transformer embeddings and UMAP for dimensionality reduction/visualization of article text.
The study followed a PRISMA protocol for literature selection and included peer‑reviewed journal articles published between 2014 and 2024, with a final sample size of n = 109.
Explicit methodological statement in the paper describing the literature search, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and final sample.
Twenty‑seven papers study marketing in banking without using NLP methods.
PRISMA systematic review; categorization of the 109 selected articles into the three coverage groups (8, 74, 27).
Seventy‑four papers study NLP in marketing more broadly (not specifically banking).
Same PRISMA‑based systematic review and manual categorization of the final sample n = 109 into topical buckets (NLP in marketing vs. NLP in bank marketing vs. marketing in banking without NLP).
Only 8 peer‑reviewed papers directly examine NLP in bank marketing (out of a final sample of 109 articles published 2014–2024).
Systematic review following PRISMA protocol; final sample n = 109 peer‑reviewed journal articles published 2014–2024; manual screening and categorization yielding counts by topic.
The study's findings are qualitative and case-driven (Xiaomi and Deloitte); generalizability is limited by case selection and the absence of standardized quantitative metrics.
Methods section explicitly states case analysis and literature review as primary methods and notes lack of large-scale quantitative measurement.
The study is qualitative and law-focused and uses Vietnam as a focused case study without collecting primary quantitative field data.
Explicit Data & Methods statement in the paper indicating doctrinal legal analysis, comparative institutional analysis, and normative framework development; no primary quantitative sample.
The study recommends empirical metrics for future evaluation of reforms, including processing time per case, reversal rates on appeal, administrative litigation frequency, compliance and procurement costs, investment flows into public-sector AI, and changes in labor composition and wages in administrative agencies.
Methodological recommendation arising from the paper's normative and comparative analysis.
The paper's argument is principally theoretical and prescriptive and requires empirical validation across domains and at scale.
Author-stated limitation in the Data & Methods section noting that the work is primarily conceptual and that empirical validation is needed.
Operationalizing DSS requires building domain ontologies/knowledge graphs, designing synthetic curricula, training compact domain models, benchmarking against monolithic LLMs, and measuring total cost-of-ownership (energy, latency, bandwidth, infrastructure).
Paper's recommended experimental and measurement agenda (procedural/methodological prescriptions); this is a proposed research plan rather than an empirical result.
The paper does not claim proprietary deployment metrics beyond qualitative field observations; experimental formalizations are provided for reproducible evaluation instead.
Authors explicitly note they document how to reproduce experiments but do not claim proprietary deployment metrics beyond qualitative field observations.
The paper recommends tracking specific operational and economic metrics: MTTR for tool failures, per-invocation latency variance, per-interaction operational cost, frequency of identity-related incidents, human remediation hours per 1,000 incidents, and SLA breach rates.
Explicit list of recommended metrics in the implications and metrics-to-track sections of the paper.
The paper provides a production-readiness checklist and instructions for reproducible evaluation alongside the proposed mechanisms.
Deliverables enumerated in the paper include a production-readiness checklist and reproducible experimental methodology.
All three proposed mechanisms (CABP, ATBA, SERF) are formalized as testable hypotheses with reproducible experimental methodology (benchmarks, latency/error models, broker pipeline semantics).
Paper includes formal descriptions and reproducible evaluation instructions and benchmarks; authors state methods to reproduce experiments are provided.
The paper organizes production failure modes across five dimensions—server contracts, user context, timeouts, errors, and observability—and provides concrete failure vignettes from an enterprise deployment.
Taxonomy and failure vignettes are listed as design artifacts and deliverables in the paper; derived from observational analysis of production logs and incidents.
Sample sizes reported: human–AI experiment n = 126; human–human benchmark n = 108.
Study's Data & Methods section reporting sample sizes for the human–AI experiment (n = 126) and citing the human–human benchmark (Dvorak & Fehrler 2024, n = 108).
Experimental design: subjects played an indefinitely repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma in supergames with two between-subjects treatments varying chat timing (chat only before first round of each supergame vs chat before every round); the AI partner was GPT-5.2.
Methods description of the lab experiment reported in the paper: indefinitely repeated PD in supergames, two chat-frequency between-subjects treatments, AI implemented as GPT-5.2; human–AI sample n = 126.
Allowing repeated pre-play communication (chat before every round) has no detectable effect on cooperation rates when the partner is an AI.
Between-subjects manipulation within the human–AI experiment comparing chat-before-first-round vs chat-before-every-round treatments (human–AI n = 126 total); statistical comparison of cooperation rates across the two chat-frequency treatments showed no detectable difference.
Initial cooperation rates against the AI (GPT-5.2) are high and comparable to initial cooperation in human–human pairs.
Laboratory experiment with human subjects playing an indefinitely repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma against an AI chatbot (GPT-5.2); human–AI sample n = 126; human–human benchmark taken from Dvorak & Fehrler (2024) with n = 108; comparison of initial-round / early-round cooperation rates across conditions.
Suggested empirical research directions for AI economists include: comparing LLM performance and economic outcomes on rule‑encodable vs tacit tasks; quantifying performance decline when forcing LLMs into interpretable rule representations; studying contracting/pricing where buyers cannot verify internal rules; and measuring returns to scale attributable to tacit capabilities.
Explicitly enumerated recommended research agenda items in the paper; these are proposed studies rather than executed work.
New metrics are needed to value tacit capabilities — e.g., measures of transfer, generalization under distribution shifts, ease of integrating with human workflows, and irreducibility to compressed rule representations.
Methodological recommendation in the paper listing specific metric categories for future empirical work.
Suggested empirical validations (not performed) include benchmarking LLMs versus rule systems on allegedly rule‑encodable tasks, attempting rule extraction and measuring fidelity loss, and compression/distillation studies to quantify irreducible task performance.
Recommendations and proposed experimental directions listed in the paper; these are proposals, not executed studies.
The paper contains mostly qualitative and historically grounded empirical content and reports no primary datasets or large‑scale experimental results in support of the formal thesis.
Explicit declaration in the Data & Methods section that empirical content is qualitative/historical and no new datasets were collected.
The paper's core methodological approach is conceptual and theoretical argumentation (formal/logical proof, historical examples, and philosophical framing), not empirical experimentation.
Stated Data & Methods description indicating reliance on formal logic, historical case analysis, and philosophical argument; absence of primary datasets.
Measuring the marginal cost of runtime governance, the tradeoff curve between task completion and compliance risk, and calibrating violation probabilities are open empirical research questions identified by the paper.
Explicit list of open problems and proposed empirical research agenda in the Implications/Measurement sections of the paper.
No large empirical dataset or large-scale field experiments were used; the work is primarily theoretical/formal with simulations and worked examples rather than empirical validation.
Paper's Methods/Data section explicitly states the work is theoretical/formal and lists reference implementation and simulations instead of large empirical studies.
Risk calibration—mapping violation probabilities to enforcement actions and thresholds—is a key unsolved operational problem for runtime governance.
Paper highlights open problems including risk calibration; argued via conceptual analysis and operational concerns (false positives/negatives, costs of blocking actions).
BenchPreS defines two complementary metrics—Misapplication Rate (MR) and Appropriate Application Rate (AAR)—to quantify over‑application and correct personalization, respectively.
Methodological contribution described in the paper: explicit definitions of MR as fraction of inappropriate applications and AAR as fraction of appropriate applications, used to score model behavior.
Pilot randomized or quasi-experimental implementations of reduced workweeks (across firms, industries, or regions) are needed to measure effects on employment, productivity, wages, and consumption.
Research-design recommendation motivated by lack of contemporary causal evidence; not an empirical finding but a stated priority for rigorous testing.
There is limited direct causal identification separating technology-driven layoffs from incentive-driven layoffs in current firm-level data, creating a need for new firm-panel datasets linking AI adoption, executive pay/ownership, layoff decisions, and local demand outcomes.
Stated limitation of the paper and research-priority recommendation; assessment based on literature gaps noted in the synthesis rather than empirical gap quantification.
Observed layoffs should be treated in empirical research as outcomes of firm governance and incentive structures; econometric studies estimating displacement from AI must control for managerial incentives and financial pressures.
Methodological recommendation based on the conceptual argument and literature linking governance/incentives to firm behavior; no new empirical demonstration provided.
Research priorities include empirical testing and simulation of ISB-based control systems, cost–benefit analysis of proactive versus reactive AI governance, and distributional impact assessments.
Explicit research agenda proposed by the author (conceptual recommendation), not empirical results.
This work is conceptual/theoretical and reports no original empirical dataset; it explicitly calls for mixed-methods empirical validation (case studies, field experiments, longitudinal studies), measurement development, and multi-level data collection.
Explicit methodological statement in the paper describing its nature as a theoretical synthesis and listing empirical needs; no empirical sample provided.
Empirical strategy: the main identification strategy uses panel regressions with quadratic AI specification and interaction terms, controlling for firm covariates, employing fixed effects and robustness checks (alternative measures, sub-samples).
Methods section description: panel regressions including AI and AI^2, interactions for moderators, controls, fixed effects, and robustness analyses reported in the paper.
Data/sample claim: the empirical analysis uses a panel of 2,575 Chinese listed firms observed from 2013 to 2023.
Paper-stated sample description (panel dataset covering 2013–2023, N = 2,575 firms).
The paper recommends an empirical research agenda including field experiments comparing teams with and without AI mediation, structural models of labor supply and wages under reduced language frictions, microdata analysis of adopters, and measurement studies for coordination costs and mediated-action reliability.
Explicit recommendations and research agenda stated in the paper; this is a descriptive claim about the paper's content rather than an empirical finding.
The paper's primary approach is conceptual/theoretical development and agenda-setting; it does not report large-scale empirical or experimental data.
Explicit methods statement in the paper: synthesis, illustrative examples, framework development; absence of reported empirical sample or experiments.
The study's empirical base consists of 40 semi-structured interviews with cross-industry project practitioners in the UK, analyzed using thematic qualitative methods.
Stated data and methods in the paper: sample size (40), interview method, cross-industry sampling, and thematic analysis.
Limitation: Implementation heterogeneity — the costs and feasibility of the recommended HR changes vary by context and may affect generalisability.
Explicit limitation acknowledged in the paper; drawn from theoretical reasoning about contextual heterogeneity and practitioner variability.
Limitation: The framework is conceptual and requires empirical validation across sectors, firm sizes and AI‑intensity levels.
Explicit limitation acknowledged by the authors; based on the paper's method (theoretical synthesis, no original data).
The paper generates empirically testable propositions (e.g., how leader practices affect AI adoption speed, task reallocation, productivity, error rates, employee well‑being and turnover) and suggests natural‑experiment settings for evaluation.
Stated methodological output of the conceptual synthesis; the paper lists candidate empirical tests and research opportunities but contains no original empirical tests.
Typical methods used are deep learning for property prediction and representation learning, protein-structure modelling tools, generative models for de novo design, NLP for knowledge extraction, and ADME/Tox in silico models integrated with traditional computational chemistry.
Methodological survey in the paper listing these approaches and examples of their application.