PaperDoctor distributed its feedback more evenly across manuscript, literature, and code dimensions than referees or the Stanford Agentic Reviewer, both of which concentrated on experiments in the main body.

PaperDoctor distributed its feedback more evenly across manuscript, literature, and code dimensions than referees or the Stanford Agentic Reviewer, both of which concentrated on experiments in the main body. · CiteArk

测量结果

已评估 0/22 项

获得支持 0有争议或冲突 0尚未评估 22

保留同一结论下的完整结果组。已有评估排在前面；单项判断不替代整组结论。展开行查看条件、来源与历次证据。

每行是一项测量，分别显示论文报告、最近可用实测和累计证据状态。
指标与条件	论文报告	最近可用实测	证据判断
topic: Main body: experiments · source: Referee reports	49.5 % of findings	—	尚未评估
topic: Main body: methodology · source: Referee reports	13.1 % of findings	—	尚未评估
topic: Main body: writing · source: Referee reports	16.7 % of findings	—	尚未评估
topic: Main body: figures · source: Referee reports	10.8 % of findings	—	尚未评估
topic: External: literature · source: Referee reports	7 % of findings	—	尚未评估
topic: External: code · source: Referee reports	3 % of findings	—	尚未评估
topic: Main body: experiments · source: Stanford Agentic Reviewer	72.6 % of findings	—	尚未评估
topic: Main body: methodology · source: Stanford Agentic Reviewer	12.8 % of findings	—	尚未评估
topic: Main body: writing · source: Stanford Agentic Reviewer	1.7 % of findings	—	尚未评估
topic: Main body: figures · source: Stanford Agentic Reviewer	2.4 % of findings	—	尚未评估
topic: External: literature · source: Stanford Agentic Reviewer	7.6 % of findings	—	尚未评估
topic: External: code · source: Stanford Agentic Reviewer	2.9 % of findings	—	尚未评估

PaperDoctor distributed its feedback more evenly across manuscript, literature, and code dimensions than referees or the Stanford Agentic Reviewer, both of which concentrated on experiments in the main body.

报告指标与观测值

Assessment（0）

关联运行（0）

测量结果