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.
The publisher issue roster identifies a comparative field study of how experts enact authority over clients when facing AI decisions.
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)
- In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man Is King: Knowledge Brokerage in the Age of Learning Algorithms
- “Collaborating” with AI: Taking a System View to Explore the Future of Work
- To Engage or Not to Engage with AI for Critical Judgments: How Professionals Deal with Opacity When Using AI for Medical Diagnosis
- When Knowledge Work and Analytical Technologies Collide: The Practices and Consequences of Black Boxing Algorithmic Technologies
- How Professionals Adapt to Artificial Intelligence: The Role of Intertwined Boundary Work
- The System of Professions
Cited by (2)
Boundaries
Limitations & independence
Recorded at coding time, carried with the work forever. A claim without its limits is not evidence.
Recorded limitations
- 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_v63n2_bibliographic.json (SHA256 f95731813c5cd409d95c9927fcb5ce6af942448ed1a73d1fd8e2689652cee355).
Source independence
corroborated:crossref-api-metadata