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。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+1151新增论文
+896其中 AI 相关
+86已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-06 21:37 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-06 13:12各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-05 22:18 — 2026-11-06 22:18(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:2026-11-06 21:37最近发现新增版本:2026-11-06 13:12库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-06 02:59

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。

17,100 已收录论文14,661 AI 相关4,055 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。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-06 21:31(北京时间)
版本更新 · v4arXiv:2508.19008

Computational Phenomenology of Borderline Personality Disorder: A Comparative Evaluation of LLM-Simulated Expert Personas and Human Clinical Experts

Marcin Moskalewicz, Anna Sterna, Karolina Drożdż, Kacper Dudzic, Marek Pokropski, Paula Flores

Building on a human-led thematic analysis of clinical life-story interviews (> 150,000 words) with inpatients with Borderline Personality Disorder, this study examines the capacity of large language models (OpenAI's GPT, Google's Gemini, and Anthropic's Claude) to support qualitative clinical analysis. The models' interpretative potential was evaluated using a mixed-methods approach. Study A involved blinded and non-blinded judges in phenomenology and clinical psychology. The experts assessed the validity of AI-generated content using semantic congruence, Jaccard coefficients, and multidimensional validity ratings, including credibility, coherence, the substantiveness of results, and grounding in qualitative data. In Study B, neural methods were used to embed human- and model-generated theme descriptions in a multidimensional vector space. This approach provided an objectified computational measure of the difference between human and model semantics and linguistic style. In Study C, complementary non-expert evaluations were conducted (N=115) to examine the influence of thematic verbosity on the perception of human authorship and content validity. Overall, the results of AI analysis showed a highly variable overlap (0-58%) with the human interpretation, while all models identified themes originally omitted by human researchers, proving their capacity to mitigate human bias. At the thematic level, external evaluators were unable to reliably distinguish human-authored themes from those generated by AI. In terms of content validity assessed against raw data by high-level experts in the blinded mode, the performance of Gemini 2.5 Pro was indistinguishable from that of humans. The comparison of semantic vector embeddings showed that its style was also the closest to humans.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.AI · cs.CL
arXiv ↗PDF ↗