arXiv (All)
open access
The Argument and the Letterhead: Source-Position Coherence in AI Evaluation
An argument can be surprising coming from a particular speaker without being a bad argument. Do AI evaluators keep these judgments apart? Two preregistered descriptive studies and a later Jev supplement collected 2,976 usable evaluations of six fixed texts about US AI policy, Germany's debt brake an
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- AI risk: structuring the debate#385817
- A Midnight Dialogue with AI: On Morality, Rules, Rights, and Agency#105354
- A Quantitative Analysis of Critical Posture in Art Writing, 1980-2025 (Dataset - 20 Critical Texts 1980–2025) v.2#166967
- Thomas Kelly, "Bias: A Philosophical Study"#726628
- The significance of strong evaluation and narrativity in supporting capacity#674061
Record · ID 1129880
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive