We investigate how Latin American Studies (LAS) has evolved since 1982 in three leading LAS journals. Using network analysis, text mining, and bibliometrics, we trace transformations in disciplinary positioning, authorship, and citation patterns. Our main claim is that LAS has undergone an assimilationist consolidation. The field is now institutionally recognisable, with core LAS journals occupying central positions in disciplinary networks and acting as bridges across fields. Yet this consolidation has reinforced hierarchies privileging Anglophone academic norms. Journals based in Latin America, once central, have been marginalised. The share of Latin American authors has grown, but their profiles converge towards Northern standards.
The June 2025 outage in the Global Database of Events, Language, and Tone (GDELT) collection pipeline left a gap in the Global Knowledge Graph (GKG), interrupting article-level news metadata used in downstream research. ReGKG-2025 is an archive-derived sample of 281,620 reconstructed article records covering all 1,665 missing 15-minute batches. Articles were recovered from Common Crawl and the Wayback Machine using source quotas estimated from surrounding native GKG data. Text was screened and normalized, non-English bodies were translated, and flagged records were manually reviewed. Eligible articles were converted to the 27-column GKG 2.1 layout. The versioned package includes record-level provenance, archive replay and WARC locators, source summaries, source-by-day calibration weights, and the complete manual decision journal. The sample reaches about 14% of modeled native volume and represents sources accounting for 84% of selected reference record mass. In an intact-week test, 41% of recovered articles matched native GKG records; field agreement on matched pairs is close to the processor baseline (tone MAE 1.69). The dataset supports retrospective content analysis and source-level aggregates; its tone and theme distributions differ from native GKG, and it does not support exhaustive counts. Data: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23964265.
This study asks what changed in engineering articles after conversational language models became publicly available on November 30, 2022, and develops methods for measuring such change in a field without a uniform abstract index. It assembled 1,839,962 articles published from 2015 to 2025 in 256 engineering journals, tracked twelve measures of wording, style, and article structure, and compared each with the projection of its own pre-2023 trend. Building the monthly series showed that records dated only by year fall on January 1 and create false January peaks unless removed. In abstracts, 31 words associated with language model output appeared 82% more often than projected (55.4 against 27.0 per 10,000 words in 2025), while four control words of the same formal register fell 16%. Words that soften a claim, such as may, fell 13%, words that strengthen one, such as clearly, rose 20%, and long words rose 11%. Author counts, reference lists, page counts, and publication volume stayed within 4% of trend. The change appears in all fourteen subject categories, and false release dates, dropping any one journal or word, and word lists chosen from the data support it. A random sample of 12,866 full texts from the same corpus, including subscription articles and weighted back to it, shows the same words rising 99% in article bodies. Statements disclosing AI writing assistance, measured apart from mentions of language models, went from none to 3.7% in 2025, four in five of them at one publisher. The design is descriptive, not causal.
Large language models can rapidly extract structured multivariate experimental data from the chemistry literature, yet verifying thousands of generated records without ground truth remains difficult. We present a general, citation-grounded extraction and verification methodology centered on an independent "LLM-as-a-judge", applied to the literature on homogeneous catalytic poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) depolymerisation. In this pipeline, an extractor LLM generates schema-enforced records from research papers with citations to document chunks tagged with universally unique identifiers (UUIDs); an independent LLM judge then reads the full paper alongside each record, flags unsupported fields, and proposes cited corrections. Prompt ablations show that requiring chunk-level citations not only provides provenance down to specific paragraphs and tables but also improves extraction accuracy. Before deploying the judge at scale, we benchmarked it against manual evaluation on extractions from a hand-curated reference set of 295 ionic-liquid-catalysed PET glycolysis experiments. The judge agreed with human evaluation on 85.7% of reviewed records and was significantly more effective than a heuristic string-matching baseline at catching errors across related experiments. Deployed across 3,942 extracted records from 561 papers, the framework accepted 67.5% of them as written. Its proposed corrections concentrated on quantitative fields, where the extractor often conflated related experiments. We release the extracted dataset with the complete LLM judge audit logs, as well as the Chemistry Data Extractor Toolkit, an open-source application implementing this end-to-end pipeline in a code-free, browser-based environment for document parsing, customizable schema and prompt design, model-agnostic extraction and auditing, interactive provenance-highlighted review, and reproducible dataset bundling.
When disasters strike, they not only damage infrastructure, buildings, and the economy, but also affect the mental health of affected populations. Research on the mental health effects of disasters has expanded rapidly and has become an important, well-funded area of psychology, public health, and related social sciences. However, the overall structure of this research landscape has not been systematically characterized. Using large language models, we conducted a review of all articles related to terms 'disaster' and 'mental health' indexed in PubMed. 7,859 articles' metadata were retrieved using the NCBI API, and then Claude Sonnet was used to extract structured variables from the abstracts. The results indicated that earthquakes and epidemics were the most commonly studied disasters while many other disasters such as heat and cold waves have received less attention. PTSD, depression, and anxiety were well investigated but many other mental health issues (e.g., aggression, suicide) are relatively ignored. Despite enjoying relatively large sample sizes (median = 452, IQR = 142 - 1,568), the field rarely utilizes machine learning algorithms. Hypothesis significance testing, reviews, qualitative methods, and structural equation modeling are respectively most common methods while agent-based modeling, machine learning, casual inference, and NLP each appear in less than 1% of articles. Studies are limited to a small number of countries, particularly the United States, Japan, and China, while many disaster-prone regions remain substantially underrepresented. This LLM-assisted computational map provides a broad overview of the disaster mental health literature while highlighting important methodological gaps, with particular emphasis on the underutilization of computational methods that could help advance the field.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to support scientific literature reviews, yet evaluations often examine individual tasks rather than the review process as a whole. We assess six AI tools across four stages: finding relevant articles, interpreting them, synthesizing across them, and proposing future research. The benchmark is a published review of the Spanish plume weather pattern and its 102-article corpus. In the initial searches, five tools collectively identified 57 articles, with the best individual tool finding 42. Institutional library access increased discovery from 42 to 82 articles for Codex and from 15 to 79 for Claude Code. Given the complete corpus of 102 PDFs, three tools correctly identified all 18 articles discussing the Spanish plume substantially, but incorrectly classified 40% to 79% of the 84 passing mentions as substantial. The same three tools produced syntheses evaluated blindly by two domain experts. Although largely accurate, the syntheses provided limited insight and sometimes contained unsupported claims, quotation errors, and exaggerated statements of consensus. Finally, all three tools proposed research directions broader than the Spanish plume literature, although two approached questions identified in the benchmark review. No single tool performed best across all tasks. We provide eight recommendations for researchers using AI tools in literature reviews. Our findings suggest that LLMs can assist with discovering and interpreting scientific literature, particularly when institutional access is available, but cannot replace expert judgment in evaluating evidence or synthesizing research.
The reconstruction of fragmented historical textiles presents a significant challenge in computational archaeology. The Oseberg ship burial, dating to 834 CE, yielded hundreds of degraded textile fragments that have resisted systematic computational analysis. While deep learning has revolutionized image-based puzzle solving, progress on archaeological textiles has been limited by the lack of domain-specific datasets and systematic evaluation of modern architectures. To address this gap, we present TEXMET, a curated dataset of 18,644 historical textile images from the Metropolitan Museum of Art's Open Access collection, representing the first textile-specific benchmark for puzzle-solving research. Using TEXMET, we conduct a systematic evaluation of three state-of-the-art puzzle-solving models: JPDVT, FCViT, and DiffAssemble. Our experiments reveal that the transformer-based models pre-trained on standard datasets fail to generalize to textiles, but domain-specific fine-tuning proves highly effective. The graph-based DiffAssemble model, when fine-tuned on TEXMET, achieves 85.89% puzzle accuracy on textile data. Most significantly, applying this fine-tuned model to 45 highly degraded Oseberg fragments yields a performance increase from 26.67% to 64.44% puzzle accuracy. These results establish TEXMET as a new benchmark for textile reconstruction and demonstrate that domain adaptation is essential for applying puzzle-solving methods to imagery of real archaeological materials.
To prepare for future outbreaks, researchers need to know what studies have been done and what data they use. Mapping a large literature by hand is slow, while large language models alone can misstate or conflate sources. We present EpiLens, a lightweight, open-source retrieval-augmented generation package that applies a fixed retrieval template and output schema to every paper in a corpus and links outputs to source passages. We build a corpus of 2,297 papers from the sources of a multi-pathogen parameter study and evaluate EpiLens's paper-classification workflow against 214 manually labelled papers. Run locally with an open-weight model, so that licensed full texts never leave our hardware, the classifier is comparable to supervised baselines trained on the manual labels, and ahead of them on geography, despite the lack of task-specific training data. The study's early extraction sheets cite published sources for 327 estimates. We link each estimate to a cited document or to corpus studies included by a review. Then, we use the classifier's labels to compare the papers associated with different parameters and pathogens. EpiLens labels more papers linked to reproduction numbers than fatality risks as model-based (53% versus 15%, compared with 62% versus 24% in the manual labels). The gap is consistent with the frequent use of transmission models to estimate reproduction numbers and largely persists within pathogens.
PlagiaCorpus is a bilingual Arabic-English dataset for benchmarking plagiarism and text-reuse detection, including reuse produced by large language models (LLMs) and reuse across languages. It contains 198,643 text records: a source corpus of 34,885 passages drawn from English and Arabic Wikipedia and two openly licensed book collections, and 163,758 queries (147,381 for training and 16,377 for testing). The queries cover five reuse classes of increasing difficulty, namely verbatim copying, character-level obfuscation, same-language paraphrasing by two different LLMs, and English--Arabic translation with structural paraphrasing, together with a Safe class of non-reused passages. Every positive query is linked to its source passage, and the train/test split is grouped by source passage so that no passage contributes queries to both splits. The release was curated through language identification, removal of LLM generation artefacts, and exact and cross-lingual de-duplication. Technical validation reports per-class length statistics, automatic checks of the train/test split, and inter-annotator agreement on a manually rated sample. The dataset is distributed in JSON and Parquet formats under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license.
One of the contributing factors to the continuing debate among art historians over the use of computational methods in art history research is that they do not consider the core of today's art history research questions. The lack of close collaboration between the two involved research communities makes the definition of contemporary art-historical methods as well-defined computer vision problems extremely difficult. For that purpose, it is devised as a methodology to study articles in art history journals from a computer science perspective. The objective is to identify which image features art historians utilise within their research and describe them in immediate and meaningful terms to the computer vision research community. Finally, some paradigms that could serve as a new starting point for exploring how computer vision applications for art history can address the core of today's art history research are given.
Every reviewer knows the feeling: more papers each cycle, three full reviews for each of them, and a suspicion that near the accept line the outcome is luck. The numbers bear it out. NeurIPS received 30,709 submissions in 2026, more than three times as many as in 2021, and reviewing them took some 184,000 expert hours, or 92 years of researchers' time. Three-quarters of those hours went to papers that were rejected. And when NeurIPS twice had the same papers reviewed by two committees, the second rejected half of what the first accepted. Conferences are responding by limiting who may submit. We simulated that answer, and an alternative, in a model calibrated to the NeurIPS experiments. The limits save little and select no better, and those based on a past acceptance fall mostly on new authors. The alternative changes how papers are judged, spending full reads only where a decision turns on them. In a staged funnel, an automated quality check first turns back papers that are not ready. The rest are ranked by their value, from short summaries, by readers that each submission brings. Only the finalists get a full read, which checks their claims and settles the final ranking. The staged funnel needs a little over half of today's expert hours, accepts 95.5% of papers in the top 3-10% (against 74% today), and makes nearly every top-0.5% paper a spotlight or oral. And because every paper brings its own reader, the funnel keeps pace with the flood.
Digital libraries preserve mathematical books printed from the sixteenth to the twentieth century, but the lettered diagrams in them, the figures on which Euclidean proofs depend, remain scanned images whose content cannot be searched. Redrawing such a diagram as a short drawing program would record which points lie on which lines and circles. But a printed plate offers no source code against which the redrawing could be checked. We introduce HistGramBench, a benchmark of 2,507 diagrams from 95 works printed between 1551 and 1933 in eight languages. For each diagram, two AI models from different providers agree on the facts a reader takes from the figure, such as which lines are parallel or where two lines meet, and every redrawing is checked against those facts on the model's own drawing. We evaluate six affordable AI models. The best recovers about three fifths of these facts, and most of what the models miss comes from programs that never produce a drawing. Parallels and tangencies are the hardest relations to reproduce. HistGramBench gives historians and librarians a way to measure when such tools can make old mathematical diagrams searchable.
This study investigates the effectiveness of large pre-trained language models (LLMs) for knowledge entity relation extraction (KERE) from academic papers. Existing studies have examined individual types of LLM-based strategies and evaluated model performance using metrics such as precision and recall. To provide a broader evaluation, this study investigates multiple strategies, including closed-source LLM-based CoT prompting, LoRA-adapted open-source LLMs, LLM-enhanced small pre-trained language models (SLMs), and SLM-enhanced closed-source LLMs. In addition, this study introduces two strategies, namely SLM-enhanced open-source LLMs and closed-source LLM-enhanced open-source LLMs. These strategies are evaluated from multiple perspectives, including metrics, their ability to mitigate errors observed in SLMs, and potential directions for model optimization. This study manually constructs two annotated datasets in the NLP domain, covering Abstract and Full-Text datasets. Experimental results show that the LoRA-adapted T5 model achieves the highest macro F1 scores of 0.7408 and 0.7013 on the Abstract and Full-Text datasets, respectively. SLMs also benefit from LLM-generated entity descriptions under the LLM-enhanced SLM strategy. Error analysis further reveals that the effectiveness of LLM-based strategies in mitigating SLM errors varies across error types. Based on the identified limitations and error patterns of these strategies, several optimization directions are proposed. In addition, combining strategies with different error patterns further improves KERE performance.
Verifying numerical claims in research written by AI agents is an important but challenging problem. Recent benchmarks show that many agent-written papers fail integrity checks, but such verdicts, often produced by a single LLM judge, identify failure without explaining its nature, and existing checks either test a paper for internal consistency or test whether a reported value appears somewhere in an agent's output. We re-analyze all 540 released judgments from a recent public benchmark of AI research agents (nine agents, fifteen open research problems) and manually label 256 numerical claims from 18 submissions. Failures concentrate on alignment between the paper and the underlying work rather than overt cheating, and about four in five unsupported claims correspond to values in the agent's own files that come from the wrong experiment, metric, or run. We introduce a deterministic claim-to-evidence checker that scores whether the surrounding context identifies the claimed result and calibrates each claim against numerical decoys. With its rules fixed before labeling, it certifies claims with over 90% precision against blinded annotators (78 of 85; Cohen's kappa = 0.89), while verifying only a subset of claims; most claims it cannot verify are nevertheless traceable, so failure to verify is not evidence of falsehood. An LLM verifier given the same evidence recovers more traceable claims but accepts about three times as many misattributed ones, so the two are best used together. Applied to 99 submissions, the checker reveals large differences in traceability across agents, and on 30 submissions a second judge configuration, with a different model and harness, orders the agents' vendor groups as the official judge does while passing twice as many papers. These findings motivate provenance-first auditing of AI-produced research.
An approximation can reproduce an energy while missing its response, or satisfy an error tolerance without being certified by a given bound. We formulate observable-specific validity records for scientific artificial intelligence (AI) that link a reduction to its reference model, error measure, tolerance, parameter domain, and transformations or interventions. Explicit displacement and velocity certificates for a singularly perturbed oscillator recover distinct convergence orders and provide sufficient validity guarantees. Exact Hubbard dimer relations resolve the different coupling domains accepted by energy and response criteria. Across 16 repeated neural fits, imposing dimensional homogeneity reduces energy scale transfer error from 52.3% to 0.0768% and raises the median fraction jointly satisfying gap and response tolerances from zero to 100%. Paired transformations verify the protected scaling relation, while a coupling crossover identifies the additional information needed for response transfer. A causal model recovers a positive intervention response beneath a strong negative observational association. For two mechanisms observed with Gaussian noise whose responses first differ at order $x^k$, we derive an exact fixed control query requirement scaling as $x^{-2k}$ and verify its full success curve numerically. Together with a 256-task evaluation interface, these results provide independently checkable tests of controlled approximation, physical transfer, and mechanism discrimination in scientific AI.
Growing submission volumes have renewed interest in using large language models (LLMs) to support peer review. It remains unclear how such evaluation should be structured, how much the model matters, and whether LLM scores predict research impact. We evaluate five paradigms across three input representations and three LLMs on 232 stratified ICLR 2025 submissions. Direct absolute rating matches comparative ranking on rank correlation with human scores, yet compresses most predictions above the accept threshold, flagging almost none of the papers reviewers scored below it. A base-rate-matched recalibration control locates the cause: comparative ranking supplies placement, not better ordering, and after recalibration Direct Rating reaches higher agreement than Elo while making 24% as many API calls. Abstract-only input beats full-paper summarization, and model choice matters as much as paradigm choice. Replicating on all 11,513 scored submissions reproduces these patterns, shows absolute agreement depends on the evaluated set's score spread, and finds none beating an always-reject baseline in accuracy. Human scores track citations better than any paradigm, with one exception: Group Rating retains its citation correlation after controlling for human scores, and alone ranks within the accepted pool. Ranking quality alone cannot assess review quality; calibration, thresholds, model, and target outcome all matter.
As generative artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more capable and widely used, understanding when and how humans should work with these systems is becoming increasingly important. However, the empirical evidence in this space offers conflicting recommendations, which leaves individuals and organizations without clear guidance on when to combine human and AI capabilities. Existing meta-analyses can help reconcile these findings, but they require substantial manual effort and cannot readily incorporate new evidence as it emerges. To address this challenge, we introduce AutoAnalysis: an automated, self-updating meta-analysis of when humans and AI work better together, and when they work better alone. AutoAnalysis' most recent run synthesizes 1,955 effect sizes from 420 papers. Across this body of work, we found that, on average, human-AI combinations performed significantly better than humans alone, but they performed significantly worse than the better of humans or AI alone. These findings highlight the important distinction between improving human performance and achieving human-AI synergy and underscore the need to evaluate collaboration against both human and AI performance alone. As new studies emerge, AutoAnalysis will integrate their findings into the meta-analysis, providing cumulative evidence about when humans and AI perform better together and how human-AI performance varies across AI agents, tasks, and processes.
A research field records its open problems in surveys, keynotes and community reports. Those are prose, written every few years, and nobody can ask them who works on a problem now or whether it was settled last year. We argue the problems should be data, and we build the system that makes them so: a hand-curated problem layer carried in unchanged, under an evidence layer rebuilt from a bibliographic index, joined by typed, provenance-carrying links in one graph database and queryable from one language. A language model does four jobs -- per-paper extraction, catalog grounding, per-paper status verdict, and idea generation -- each constrained to a candidate set so out-of-set answers are refused rather than stored. We report a study on two curated catalogs, database research (1,053 problems) and AI research (1,000 problems), each with a prior catalog-only graph. The rebuilt graph answers every question the catalog-only graph answered -- 47 of 47 on databases, 34 of 35 on AI -- plus questions the catalog-only graph refused: recent workers, untouched problems, methods tried, and outside papers bearing on a problem (336 problems, 770 works on databases). The capability we most wanted does not survive its own audit. Of 41 solves and refutes verdicts hand-checked against the papers, 9 are correct, 30 partly correct and 2 wrong; no refutes verdict (0 of 34) disproves an open problem, and only 1 of 7 solves closes the central question. We report that failure in full and draw the design conclusion: a status change must be proposed with its evidence and never applied, making the human reviewer part of the architecture. We close with the data-engineering problems this raises: entity resolution across curated and harvested layers, verifying model status claims, freshness under source quotas, and evaluation without ground truth.
National aviation-investigation databases are deep but territorial; global compilations such as the Aviation Safety Network and the Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives are hand-curated, apply their own inclusion thresholds, and publish no per-record lineage. The FlightFinder Occurrence Corpus harmonizes 279,485 occurrences and 131,882 attached narratives from 128 source codes -- national accident-investigation authorities, occurrence-reporting systems and four global compilations. Records are mapped into one schema; each normalized record reduces to exactly one key from an ordered ladder -- event signature, registration and date, rounded position and date, or source and native identifier -- so a missing field never creates a link, and the key is the occurrence identifier. Records the ladder cannot reach are scored in a blocked pass into an explicit merge table and applied only within an automatically approved score band or after a person confirms them. Field conflicts follow a documented source ranking; one provenance row per contributing source -- its native identifier and URL -- is retained, with attribution and licence terms per source code. Linkage error is measured on five adjudicated samples totalling 200 pairs. A recorded uniform random draw of 60 from the 3,441 merges the automatic band applies as it ships found no error; the exact two-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson upper bound on its false-merge rate is 6.0%, or 205 pairs. The measured error covers the scored band only; the ladder's deterministic joins are not adjudicated. The corpus has no exposure denominators and inherits the under-reporting of its sources. It is offered as a base for cross-national safety statistics, source-disagreement studies and narrative text mining; a frozen, DOI-referenced snapshot accompanies the live API.
Introduction. Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) programs must document their scholars' research impact, but assembling each scholar's record by hand takes staff an estimated 15 hours and does not scale to a full cohort. An artificial intelligence (AI) agent could serve as a tool to gather scholar data across platforms and disciplines. Methods. We built a human-in-the-loop AI agent that assembles a dossier of sourced evidence for each scholar and drafts one-sentence Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) impact summaries for staff review. We evaluated it in the impact-reporting workflow of one CTSA hub across 10 career-development (KL2/K12) scholars. Two evaluation staff independently coded all 507 findings as accept, edit, or reject; the primary measure was the unanimous usable rate, defined as the share both accepted or edited. Results. Both reviewers accepted or edited 81.7% of the agent's findings. Reviewers each spent a median of 14 minutes per scholar, replacing an estimated 15 hours of manual assembly. Inter-rater agreement was moderate (Cohen's kappa 0.43 on the usable-versus-reject decision). A profile discovery study found the agent's recall close to human search. The agent's impact evidence spanned all four TSBM domains, and about a third of the reviewed findings fell in non-scholarly categories that routine processes tend to miss. Reviewers rated synthesis accuracy 4.5 and usefulness 4.8 on a 5-point scale. Conclusions. A human-in-the-loop AI agent can serve as the first-pass author of a scholar's impact record, shifting staff from collecting and writing to reviewing, and making cohort-scale impact reporting feasible.