From the hash-bound evidence releases
Recorded claims
Each claim states what the inspected source says, at the recorded location—bounded by its scope and graded by its confidence. Nothing here is a synthesis across works.
Across six longitudinal studies with three sessions each in corporate credit-rating contexts, the abstract reports that participants’ initial estimates moved closer to AI advice over time and that decision-making experience shaped relative reliance on that advice.
Scope: publisher-deposited abstract metadata observed 2026-08-20
The abstract analyzes how experience, information, and disagreement shape workers’ reliance on AI advice in corporate credit-rating decisions.
Scope: abstract-level
The publisher issue roster identifies an article on individuals' reliance on self versus AI in corporate credit-rating contexts.
Scope: publisher issue-roster title and article-type metadata
Structured relationships
In-corpus citations
Only source-supplied cites relationships whose two endpoints are admitted are shown. Invocation evidence remains a separate relationship.
Cites (6)
- How Professionals Adapt to Artificial Intelligence: The Role of Intertwined Boundary Work
- Algorithmic Embeddedness and the ‘Gig’ Characteristics Model: Examining the Interplay between Technology and Work Design in Crowdwork
- To Engage or Not to Engage with AI for Critical Judgments: How Professionals Deal with Opacity When Using AI for Medical Diagnosis
- Friend or Foe? Teaming Between Artificial Intelligence and Workers with Variation in Experience
- Algorithm-Augmented Work and Domain Experience: The Countervailing Forces of Ability and Aversion
- Human Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Review of Empirical Research
Cited by (1)
Boundaries
Limitations & independence
Recorded at coding time, carried with the work forever. A claim without its limits is not evidence.
Recorded limitations
- Crossref public API abstract-level evidence only; full text was not inspected.
- The public abstract does not state the participant denominator.
- Publisher HTML was not inspected after a representative Wiley DOI page returned HTTP 403.
- Crossref metadata only; full text was not inspected.
- The publisher surface was not queried after the lane’s quarantined dynamic-challenge response; no independent publisher-page verification was attempted.
- The direct Wiley TOC returned HTTP 403; the retained public-search rendering supplied title, authors, date, pages, and article type.
- No abstract or full text was inspected, so the claim is limited to title-level metadata.
- Crossref DOI corroboration is retained in crossref_jms_ai_issue_bibliographic.json (SHA256 09f2707e67de2b15634dbce1ffaf62481bbe901ddaf6efdc4981f1abf86ba8c7).
Source independence
corroborated:crossref-api-metadata