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.
A company field study of AI-assisted medical-chart coding reports that workers with more task-specific experience benefited more, whereas senior workers gained less, likely triggered by lower trust in the AI associated with their broader responsibilities.
Scope: publisher-deposited abstract metadata; knowledge-worker productivity, experience, trust, and human-AI teaming; sample denominator and period are not stated
Structured relationships
In-corpus citations
Only source-supplied cites relationships whose two endpoints are admitted are shown. Invocation evidence remains a separate relationship.
Cites (2)
Cited by (3)
- When Do Individuals Believe in Themselves Rather Than in Artificial Intelligence? Insights from Longitudinal Investigations in Corporate Credit‐Rating Contexts
- When AI Becomes My Teammate: Unpacking How Employees Perceive and Collaborate With Gendered AI Teammates
- Rethinking How We Theorize AI in Organization and Management: A Problematizing Review of Rationality and Anthropomorphism
Boundaries
Limitations & independence
Recorded at coding time, carried with the work forever. A claim without its limits is not evidence.
Recorded limitations
- Abstract-level Crossref metadata only; the blocked publisher surface was not retried.
- The captured abstract does not state the worker denominator or study period.
- Crossref did not supply a volume or issue in the retained response; the record remains online-first at the captured manifestation level.
- Full text was not inspected.
Source independence
publisher-only