Humanities & Social Sciences

The work presents TeleAntiFraud 2.0, a refreshable Chinese audio benchmark for telecom fraud detection organized as monthly frozen snapshots, in which mixed-tree generation makes fraud and lawful near-domain calls share context and diverge only at label-bearing actions, and it reports that three text classifiers reach perfect Macro-F1 against unrelated or ordinary negatives but drop to 0.65-0.68 with near-domain sibling negatives, while full-set audio and ASR+LLM evaluations expose class-prior shortcuts, prediction collapse, and snapshot sensitivity.

This letter to the editor responds to a study by Zhou et al published in the World Journal of Gastroenterology on the concept of artificial wisdom (AW) applied to historical medical inquiry, itself a response to an AI-human analysis of Alexander the Great's cause of death; while acknowledging the innovative integration of generative AI with clinical reasoning, the letter highlights epistemic and ethical limitations, arguing that AI systems shaped by transient data and iterative obsolescence cannot access enduring or timeless truths, that the persuasive fluency of large language models risks creating an illusion of certainty and conflating probabilistic synthesis with wisdom, and that transparency, accountability, and human moral stewardship are essential safeguards, ultimately proposing a

This opinion review argues that the current academic promotion system in surgery disproportionately favors quantifiable metrics such as publications and grant funding over the demonstration of clinical skill, creating a fundamental "credentialing paradox"; that AI tools, by streamlining research tasks, amplify this publication-centric culture and widen the disconnect between a surgeon's academic rank and their proficiency in the operating room, placing less-funded faculty and those who dedicate time to clinical care and education at a disadvantage; and that the profession should redefine academic success through a more holistic framework that formally recognizes and rewards excellence in clinical care, education, and mentorship alongside research output.

This is a guest opinion piece by Grant Sanderson published on Terence Tao's blog, arguing that the mathematics community should more firmly define and grant academic credit to a kind of work it calls a "motivated explanation" — exposition that places definitions in the middle, may begin from a relatable but not-quite-right idea, and aims to answer "how would you think of that?" — and offering concrete institutional suggestions such as making the deliverable of a small problem a talk, enumerating unsolved exposition problems, founding journals focused on understanding, and valuing great textbook writing more in hiring and tenure.

An analysis published in Science used 2010–2022 data from the China National Intellectual Property Administration, Web of Science, and the China Stock Market and Accounting Research Database to compare Chinese firms placed on the US Entity List with similar unsanctioned firms, finding that sanctioned firms produced 72.3% more patents citing at least one scientific publication and published 33.3% more papers indexed in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure and 85.2% more in Web of Science, while Chinese patents citing scientific literature overall rose from 5,225 in 2010 to 94,441 in 2022.

Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, this systematic scoping review searched PubMed and Web of Science and identified 72 relevant studies, mapping AI applications in social support for persons with disabilities through the lens of participation, autonomy, and environmental fit across five areas—"Mobility and Navigation Assistance" (n = 20, 41.7%), "Communication and Information Accessibility" (n = 14, 29.2%), "Smart Assistance for Daily Living" (n = 7, 14.6%), "Education and Vocational Empowerment" (n = 5, 8.3%), and "Mental Health Support and Social Inclusion" (n = 3, 6.3%)—and identifying challenges including data privacy (58.3%), inadequate training datasets (25.0%), high implementation costs (25.0%), algorithmic biases (20.8%), and limited real-world evidence of benefits (20.

This keynote talk examines how hyperlinks can point anywhere and also nowhere, arguing that scholarly content assigned a DOI appears as a hyperlink carrying authority from its independent metadata, and can thereby instantiate “phantom citation objects” describing targets that never existed and never will exist; coupled with the growth of LLM-generated papers and their “rancid hallucinated claims” for cited works, such phantom research objects proliferate throughout the scholarly record, raising questions about the authority claims of DOI hyperlinks and the practical implications for digital preservation.

Drawing on the author's own experience as a former UX practitioner and AI ethics team member at Microsoft, alongside semi-structured interviews with nine practitioners who had experienced values misalignment in their work on genAI, and analyzing the data through reflexive thematic analysis complemented by 175-word speculative microfictions, this research identifies three themes—practitioners' ambivalence rather than opposition toward genAI, their significant ethical disempowerment due to structural barriers and the absence of ethical discussion in the workplace, and their use of "lean in" and "lean out" tactics to exert agency—and, framed through the metaphor of loops, argues that expecting practitioners to bear ethical accountability for outcomes they cannot meaningfully influence is incr