The DOI matches its DataCite record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 5 of the 17 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AI-generated Summaries of Search Results in a Domain-specific Search Engine
Open accessAbstract
Evaluating search engine results pages (SERPs) to assess result relevance is a demanding step in academic search. In a formative mixed-methods design study, we examine AI-generated SERP-level summaries as a support feature in an academic search engine for social science information. First, we manually evaluated summaries of the top five results for 10 queries using two general-purpose models, one commercial and one open, deriving an exploratory six-category error taxonomy and five safeguards for scholarly deployment. We then conducted a within-subjects user study (n = 30) comparing interfaces with and without AI summaries. Confirmatory analyses showed consistent but non-significant trends favoring AI summaries for subjective workload, perceived usefulness, satisfaction, and decision-making confidence. Exploratory analyses suggested lower mental demand, with frustration also tending to be lower. Behaviorally, participants rarely expanded the summaries and descriptively made slightly fewer result clicks and query reformulations when summaries were available. Drawing on Information Foraging Theory and participant feedback, we suggest that AI summaries may concentrate SERP-level information scent to support early triage. Overall, the findings indicate that SERP-level AI summaries are a context- and user-dependent aid rather than a universal improvement, while contributing an error taxonomy, safeguard-aware deployment guidance, and concrete design implications for scholarly search.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This formative mixed-methods study evaluates AI-generated SERP-level summaries of the top five results in a social science academic search engine. It finds consistent but non-significant user benefits, exploratory lower mental demand, and model-dependent summary errors, concluding that such summaries are a context- and user-dependent aid rather than a universal improvement.
Key findings
- In manual metadata-grounded evaluation of 10 queries, GPT-4o mini produced 5 “Correct,” 4 “Partially Correct,” and 1 “Incorrect” summary; Llama 4 Scout produced 2 “Correct,” 8 “Partially Correct,” and 0 “Incorrect,” indicating lower overall quality. The authors derive a six-category error taxonomy and five safeguards.
- In the within-subjects user study (n = 30), none of the four confirmatory outcomes were significant after Holm-Bonferroni adjustment, though all directionally favored AISummary: NASA-TLX total 28.94 vs. 23.69 (p = .121, d = −0.292), perceived usefulness 5.11 vs. 5.39 (p = .465), satisfaction 4.90 vs. 5.37 (p = .156), and decision confidence 5.13 vs. 5.43 (p = .393).
- Exploratory NASA-TLX subscale analysis found significantly lower mental demand with AISummary (41.67 vs. 32.00, p = .040, d = −0.394); frustration was lower but non-significant (22.17 vs. 12.17, p = .068, r = −0.443).
- Behaviorally, participants rarely expanded summaries (M = 0.97), and AISummary descriptively showed slightly fewer result clicks (3.83 vs. 4.67), bookmarks (5.00 vs. 5.87), and reformulations (4.27 vs. 4.73), with no significant differences; 15 of 30 preferred AISummary, 8 preferred NoSummary, and 7 had no preference.
Methods
- Formative mixed-methods design with two investigations: a manual metadata-grounded accuracy evaluation of AI summaries of the top five results for 10 social science queries using GPT-4o mini and Llama 4 Scout, with three independent raters reaching consensus labels and thematic analysis of errors.
- A controlled remote within-subjects user study (n = 30 social scientists or social science students) compared NoSummary and AISummary interfaces, counterbalanced, with familiar and predefined topic tasks, 10-minute sessions, and data collected 1–22 September 2025.
- Measures included Raw NASA-TLX, perceived usefulness, satisfaction, decision-making confidence, summary ratings, interface preference, semi-structured interviews, and automatic logs of clicks, bookmarks, expansions, and query reformulations; analysis used Shapiro-Wilk tests, paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, Holm-Bonferroni correction for four confirmatory outcomes, and exploratory NASA-TLX subscale analyses.
Limitations
- The paper states: the accuracy evaluation covered only ten queries, so the error taxonomy is exploratory; the sample size had limited power for small effects; most participants were recruited via Prolific, sessions were remote and time-limited, and participant background, AI-tool use, and topic familiarity were not modeled.
- The paper also states: the summary always covered the top five results, so alternative coverage thresholds or dynamic cutoffs could not be assessed; expert relevance judgments were lacking, so retrieval effectiveness could not be assessed directly; and the study focused on the social sciences, limiting generalizability.
- Evident from the text: the user study tested only one selected model (GPT-4o mini) and one fixed summary design, so model- and design-dependent effects remain unclear.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
5 of 17 cited sources checked · 3 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In academic search, this abundance creates the challenge of rapidly triaging and assessing relevance under uncertainty using limited cues on the search engine results page (SERP), such as titles, abstracts, and other metadata (Marshall & Shipman, 1997).”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Marshall & Shipman, 1997 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction describes time-constrained triage of numerous relevant materials requiring quick assessment with insufficient knowledge. But the study concerns documents already retrieved and narrowed to a task-based corpus, not assessment on an academic search results page; the copy does not establish reliance on SERP abstracts or metadata. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Prior work in non-academic contexts shows query-relevant summaries at the individual result level can shift effort from opening documents, enabling faster relevance judgments (Tombros & Sanderson, 1998).”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Semi-structured Interview
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Tombros & Sanderson, 1998 source
The Methods (§2) identify the documents as Wall Street Journal articles, a non-academic collection. The Abstract says the query-biased summaries appeared with individual retrieved results and improved the speed of relevance judgments; Further Work and Conclusions says users relied on them instead of referring to full documents. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.93)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“A qualitative study with 21 expert users observed substantially fewer source interactions with an LLM-based answer engine compared to a traditional search engine.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Influence of Generative AI on Information Seeking Behavior
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Narayanan Venkit et al., 2025 source
Section 3.1.1 says the final study involved 21 participants after a three-person pilot. Section 3.4 reports substantially fewer source interactions with answer engines than with traditional search engines: participants hovered over an average of 2 versus 12 sources and clicked about 1 versus 4. (LLM, conf=0.94)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Behaviorally, participants rarely expanded the summaries and descriptively made slightly fewer result clicks and query reformulations when summaries were available.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Abstract
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: The metadata of the top five search results is sufficient for an off-the-shelf LLM to generate useful multi-document summaries.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Confirmatory analyses showed consistent but non-significant trends favoring AI summaries for subjective workload, perceived usefulness, satisfaction, and decision-making confidence.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: The metadata of the top five search results is sufficient for an off-the-shelf LLM to generate useful multi-document summaries.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, in our manual metadata-grounded accuracy evaluation, GPT-4o mini received stronger labels than Llama 4 Scout.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Suggestions for Improving the AI-generated Summary
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mental demand showed a statistically significant reduction in the AISummary condition (𝑝 = .040,𝑑 = -0.394).”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Exploratory NASA-TLX Subscales
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although all measures directionally favored AISummary, with lower workload, higher perceived usefulness, greater satisfaction, and increased confidence, the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all differences included zero, and observed effects were small.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Confirmatory Analyses
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As shown in Table 2, statistical comparisons of click counts did not yield significant differences between conditions, either overall or when stratified by topic type.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Behavioral Data
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although all measures directionally favored AISummary, with lower workload, higher perceived usefulness, greater satisfaction, and increased confidence, the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all differences included zero, and observed effects were small.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Confirmatory Analyses
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
- Probably not a substantial claim. 28
- It may state two separate claims as one. 34
- The quote only partly states this claim. 3
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Using inductive coding, two researchers (first and second authors of this paper) labeled all participant responses independently.It was permissible for a single response to be assigned multiple codes if it encompassed several distinct themes.Following the independent coding, the two researchers negotiated and resolved disagreements until consensus was reached for all responses, following best prac”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Qualitative Feedback
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Braun & Clarke, 2006 source
- Partly supportedcites McDonald et al., 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Sections 4.1 and 5.2.3 describe inductive coding approaches in which researchers discuss disagreements and sometimes reach consensus. They do not establish that two researchers independently labeled all responses in the citing study; section 4.1 also describes approaches that use only a subset of the data. The source supports the disagreement-resolution practice, not those study-specific details. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“We adopted a consensus-based approach in which the three raters discussed and resolved all disagreements to reach a shared final label for each summary, following best practices for interpretive coding tasks (McDonald et al., 2019).”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > AI SUMMARY QUALITY EVALUATION (RQ1)
What the sources say
- Supportedcites McDonald et al., 2019 source
Section 4.1 describes coders discussing disagreements and revising codes until they reached consensus. Section 5.2.3 treats discussing disagreements as useful for interpretive coding. The three raters and final label for each summary describe the citing authors’ own procedure, not a finding attributed to McDonald et al. (2019). (LLM, conf=0.87)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Exploratory analyses suggested lower mental demand, with frustration also tending to be lower.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Abstract
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The metadata of the top five search results is sufficient for an off-the-shelf LLM to generate useful multi-document summaries.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Behaviorally, participants rarely expanded the summaries and descriptively made slightly fewer result clicks and query reformulations when summaries were available.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Abstract
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The metadata of the top five search results is sufficient for an off-the-shelf LLM to generate useful multi-document summaries.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Frustration did not reach conventional significance (𝑝 = .068,𝑟 = -0.443),with lower frustration in the AISummary condition.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Exploratory NASA-TLX Subscales
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among those favoring the interface featuring the AI-generated summary, two rationales dominated: perceived speed, efficiency, and ease (𝑛 = 8), and the value of a high-level overview and starting point (𝑛 = 8).”
- Also stated in: § Qualitative Feedback · plain
“A third of this group highlighted general search support and guidance (𝑛 = 5), such as validating or refining keywords”
- Also stated in: § Qualitative Feedback · plain
“Four participants noted that the summary supported relevance judgments”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Qualitative Feedback
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 8Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Qualitative Feedback · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Those reporting no preference often described conditional value rather than blanket endorsement or rejection.The most common stance was contextual utility (𝑛 = 3)”
- Also stated in: § Qualitative Feedback · plain
“Interface and visibility issues also mattered (𝑛 = 2), with some missing the feature entirely (P8:”
- Also stated in: § Qualitative Feedback · plain
“Two participants expressed trust, accuracy, and reliability reservations without it changing their preference”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Qualitative Feedback
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 3Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Qualitative Feedback · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The remaining subscales showed no significant differences with negligible-to-small effects.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Exploratory NASA-TLX Subscales
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although all measures directionally favored AISummary, with lower workload, higher perceived usefulness, greater satisfaction, and increased confidence, the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all differences included zero, and observed effects were small.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Confirmatory Analyses
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Several asked for even shorter, more concise summaries (P1:”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Suggestions for Improving the AI-generated Summary
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, participants evaluated the AI-generated summaries favorably on 7-point scales (with an”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > AISummary Ratings & Interface Preference
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Visual design fixes (𝑛 = 3) targeted color issues and friction points such as hover interactions”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Suggestions for Improving the AI-generated Summary
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 3Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Close behind, six participants asked to surface more metadata such as authors, date/recency, geography, population, design (e.g., cross-sectional vs. longitudinal), key variables, and citation counts.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Suggestions for Improving the AI-generated Summary
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 6Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants who preferred the standard interface typically expressed AI reliability or visual design issues.Trust, accuracy, and reliability concerns were most prominent (𝑛 = 5)”
- Also stated in: § Qualitative Feedback · plain
“Interface and visibility issues also factored (𝑛 = 3), with P14 stating,”
- Also stated in: § Qualitative Feedback · plain
“Some simply preferred established habits (P7:”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Qualitative Feedback
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Qualitative Feedback · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From participants' responses, we gathered 28 concrete suggestions (i.e., the total number of individual labels that emerged during the coding process; not every participant provided a suggestion), which cluster into presentation, transparency, interactivity, and user control.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Suggestions for Improving the AI-generated Summary
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Calls for more system transparency (𝑛 = 2) centered on exposing confidence and ranking rationales.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Suggestions for Improving the AI-generated Summary
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 2Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Regarding interface preference, 15 of the 30 participants favored the AISummary condition, eight preferred the NoSummary condition, and seven expressed no preference.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > AISummary Ratings & Interface Preference
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedn = 30Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants also desired increased interactivity to query the summary for specifics (P17: the ability to ask”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Suggestions for Improving the AI-generated Summary
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, the number of query reformulations per task (i.e., modifications to a query while pursuing the same information need) did not differ between NoSummary and AISummary overall, nor within familiar or predefined topics (all 𝑝 > .05).”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Behavioral Data
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Prior work on academic information seeking highlights that early-stage searching is often characterized by uncertainty and evolving problem understanding, and that users can benefit from support that helps them orient and refine their focus (Kuhlthau, 1991).”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kuhlthau, 1991
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Subjective workload using the Raw NASA-TLX (Hart & Staveland, 1988) (six subscales on 21-point scales mapping to 0-100; composite = mean of subscales)”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Self-reported Variables for both Conditions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hart & Staveland, 1988 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Taken together, the justification patterns reveal a clear trade-off: users who valued efficiency, a focused starting point, and rapid relevance assessment leaned toward the summary, whereas users who prioritized verification, transparency, or who had strong existing preferences tended to see it as redundant or risky.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Qualitative Feedback
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We targeted 30 participants for this formative within-subjects study to identify directional patterns and elicit qualitative feedback, not to estimate small effects precisely.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Participants
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The effectiveness of these summaries is also tied to their interpretability, as search results whose summaries are more transparent (regarding why a result was retrieved) and assessable (easy to tell if a result will be useful) are more likely to be clicked (Mi & Jiang, 2019).”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Effects of Query-biased Extractive Summaries for Single Search Results
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mi & Jiang, 2019 source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, the accuracy evaluation covered only ten queries, so the error taxonomy is exploratory and should be validated on broader query sets, domains, and models.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > LIMITATIONS
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although the overviews drew greater visual attention and were perceived as useful, they did not affect click-through rates or physiologically measured cognitive load in this study.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Influence of Generative AI on Information Seeking Behavior
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Rolon-Merette et al., 2025
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most quantitative differences therefore remained inconclusive and should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating rather than confirmatory.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > LIMITATIONS
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rare expansion of the summary suggests that the collapsed view may have provided enough SERP-level scent for coarse orientation, while abstracts and metadata remained available for deeper judgment of individual results.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Suggestions for Improving the AI-generated Summary
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This suggests that summaries could affect decision-making certainty about result selection.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > H4 (Decision-making Confidence)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also lacked expert relevance judgments and therefore cannot assess retrieval effectiveness directly.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > LIMITATIONS
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, most participants were recruited via Prolific, sessions were remote and time-limited, and participant background, AI-tool use, and topic familiarity were not modeled.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > LIMITATIONS
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While extractive single-result summaries have been studied for decades, the paradigm of a single, AI-generated summative overview spanning multiple results remains under-investigated in specialized scholarly contexts.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > INTRODUCTION
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Together with favorable ratings of understandability, usefulness, and relevance assessability, as well as qualitative accounts of rapid orientation and relevance assessment support, these patterns suggest that SERP-level summaries may help users orient more quickly without replacing source inspection.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Suggestions for Improving the AI-generated Summary
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This formative work extends prior research on query-biased summaries for single search results to SERP-level, multi-document AI summaries in academic search, where users seek source documents rather than direct answers.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Suggestions for Improving the AI-generated Summary
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A foundational body of research has established that providing users with high-quality extractive summaries alongside single search results improves both the efficiency and effectiveness of information seeking.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Effects of Query-biased Extractive Summaries for Single Search Results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These may be particularly pronounced in specialized domains such as academic search, where documents are often dense and contain complex jargon.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > RELATED WORK Extractive, Abstractive, and LLM-based Summarization
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Non-conversational LLM-based tools show similar efficiency gains (Spatharioti et al., 2025).”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Semi-structured Interview
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Spatharioti et al., 2025 source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interpreted through Information Foraging Theory, these findings suggest that compact, source-linked summaries may concentrate SERP-level information scent and support early-stage triage without replacing source inspection.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > CONCLUSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Thus, while web searchers often seek a direct answer to a question, users of an academic search system aim to find relevant source documents (i.e., datasets or publications) to help answer a research question.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Figure 1. Screenshot of the AISummary Condition with Expanded Summary for an Exemplary Query
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each participant interacted with both variants, and the order of interaction was counterbalanced:”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Interface Variants
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the same time, preferences were mixed, underscoring that the AI summaries are best understood as a context-and user-dependent aid rather than a universal improvement.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Suggestions for Improving the AI-generated Summary
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Model choice thus seems to function as an interaction-design variable, with errors compromising identifier fidelity or result coverage posing particular threats in scholarly contexts where citation integrity is essential.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Suggestions for Improving the AI-generated Summary
Tests✓ Asserted: passes? Checkable: unclear✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To increase ecological validity by covering both familiar and unfamiliar academic search contexts, each participant completed both a self-chosen familiar topic task and a randomly assigned predefined topic task, randomly paired (with equal distribution) with the two interface conditions:”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Interface Variants
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although the overviews drew greater visual attention and were perceived as useful, they did not affect click-through rates or physiologically measured cognitive load in this study.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Influence of Generative AI on Information Seeking Behavior
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Rolon-Merette et al., 2025
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interpreted through Information Foraging Theory, we propose that the summary can act as a”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Suggestions for Improving the AI-generated Summary
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“This can lead to higher user satisfaction with their search results when provided with query-biased summaries (White et al., 2003).”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Effects of Query-biased Extractive Summaries for Single Search Results
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites White et al., 2003
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fourth, the summary always covered the top five results, so we cannot assess alternative coverage thresholds or dynamic cutoffs.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > LIMITATIONS
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Recent research on Generative AI (GenAI) in the context of information seeking reveals a trade-off between efficiency and the depth of user engagement.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Influence of Generative AI on Information Seeking Behavior
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We controlled family-wise error rate for the four confirmatory outcome measures (NASA-TLX total, perceived usefulness, satisfaction, confidence) using the Holm-Bonferroni procedure.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Statistical Analysis
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The study was approved by our institute's ethics committee.”
§ AI Overviews in Academic Search: Evaluating AIgenerated Summaries of Search Results in a Domainspecific Search Engine > Procedure and Tasks
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
The metadata of the top five search results is sufficient for an off-the-shelf LLM to generate useful multi-document summaries.
“The summaries were generated in real time by OpenAI's GPT-4o mini model (time of use: 1-22 September 2025) based on the results' metadata (i.e., title, abstract, and topics/keywords).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Information Foraging Theory is an appropriate framework for interpreting SERP-level AI summary effects in academic search.
“Drawing on Information Foraging Theory and participant feedback, we suggest that AI summaries may concentrate SERP-level information scent to support early triage.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Performance confidence interval has the opposite sign from the reported difference
MinorThe Performance means imply an AISummary − NoSummary difference of −1.83, consistent with the negative t statistic and effect size. The reported 95% confidence interval, however, is centered at +1.83, suggesting its endpoints were calculated for the reverse subtraction.
“Performance 42.33 (29.12) 40.50 (28.81) 42.50, 40.00 𝑡 (29) = -0.260.796-𝑑 = -0.05[-12.57,16.23]”
“𝑐 Difference calculated as AISummary -NoSummary.”
Citations
Cites
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research
(1988) · Advances in Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0166-4115(08)62386-9 · Cited by 15,003
Lakens, D. (2013) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863 · Cited by 10,303
The dark side of information: overload, anxiety and other paradoxes and pathologies
Bawden, D., & Robinson, L. (2008) · Journal of Information Science · doi:10.1177/0165551508095781 · Cited by 1,622
Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation
Newcomer, K. E., Hatry, H. P., & Wholey, J. S. (2015) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119171386 · Cited by 1,471
McDonald, N., Schoenebeck, S., & Forte, A. (2019) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3359174 · Cited by 1,206
Automatic text summarization: A comprehensive survey
El-Kassas, W. S., Salama, C. R., Rafea, A., & Mohamed, H. K. (2020) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113679 · Cited by 906
Gusenbauer, M. (2019) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2958-5 · Cited by 687
Rötzel, P. G. (2018) · BuR - Business Research · doi:10.1007/s40685-018-0069-z · Cited by 561
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- ch19 · DOI
- Alexander, N., Brown, C., Jose, J. M., Ruthven, I., & Tombros, A. (2000). Question answering, relevance feedback and summarisation: TREC-9 interactive track report. In E. M. Voorhees & D. K. Harman (Eds.), Proceedings of the ninth text REtrieval conference, TREC 2000, gaithersburg, maryland, USA, november 13-16, 2000 (Vols. 500-249). National Institute of Standards; Technology (NIST). http://trec.nist.gov/pubs/trec9/papers/glasgow\_proceedings.pdf
- Kuhlthau, C. C. (1991). Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user's perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(5), 361-371. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097- 4571(199106)42:5<361::AID-ASI6>3.0.CO;2-\# · DOI
- Madsen, M., & Gregor, S. (2000). Measuring human-computer trust. 11th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, 53, 6-8.
- Rolon-Merette, T., Guo, E. Y., Poivré, F., Benbousta, M., Amoros, S., Karran, A. J., Coursaris, C. K., Senecal, S., & Leger, P.-M. (2025). Generative AI Summaries Do Not Increase User Engagement: A Study of Google AI Overviews. Proceedings of the SIGHCI 2024 Workshop on HCI Research in MIS. https://aisel.aisnet.org/sighci2024/29
- Schütze, H., Manning, C. D., & Raghavan, P. (2008). Introduction to information retrieval (Vol. 39). Cambridge University Press Cambridge.
Cited by
Still being checked.
Metadata
- Authors
- Schott, K., Silva, K., Frommholz, I., Mayr, P., Kern, D., & Hienert, D.
- Affiliations
- GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences (DE)
- MODUL University Vienna (AT)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2607.03421
- OpenAlex
- W7167643947
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 44
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (388815326)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Keywords
- AI-generated summaries, search engine results, academic search, social science information, information foraging theory, information scent, user study, perceived usefulness, mental demand, query rewriting, error taxonomy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
