跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

采集已暂停
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+0已有论文修订
+0新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:等待完成 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-02 00:39各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-03 17:59 — 2026-11-04 17:59(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:尚未完成最近发现新增版本:2026-11-02 00:39库内论文最新更新时间:2026-10-30 01:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

8,677 已收录论文7,675 AI 相关1,866 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序等待首次采集
新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.37348

Uneven Use, Similar Trust Generative AI in Denmark and Romania

Iulian Lucau, Adelin-George Voicu, Simon Munk Christensen

Generative AI (GenAI) has spread unevenly across Europe, and it is unclear whether higher use brings higher trust. This paper compares Denmark and Romania, the EU's highest and lowest GenAI users, and asks whether the difference in public and institutional trust between them corresponds to the difference in trust in AI. Drawing on trust, technology-acceptance and digital-divide theory, it is a descriptive, contrasting-case analysis of harmonised data: GenAI usage comes from Eurostat, trust in AI more generally from the KPMG/Melbourne global study and public and institutional trust from the Standard Eurobarometer. In 2025, 48.4% of Danes aged 16-74 had used GenAI in the past three months, against 17.8% of Romanians. Use falls with age and rises with education in both countries, and the relative gaps are far larger in Romania; the patterns remain visible within the published age-by-education categories. Trust in AI does not follow usage: Romanians trust AI as much as Danes or slightly more, although Denmark leads by 28 to 45 percentage points on trust in government, parliament and the legal system. The Denmark-Romania comparison thus does not support a simple country-level correspondence between general institutional trust and trust in AI; in KPMG's pooled model, trust in AI is tied most closely to confidence in AI governance. The observed usage difference is more consistent with disparities in general digital skills and opportunities for work- and education-related use than with differences in trust. However, the available data cannot identify the independent effects of these factors. The results rest on two cases and non-identical constructs, and call for comparable microdata and disclosure experiments.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.CY
arXiv ↗PDF ↗