PaperDoctor's L1 check frequencies were broadly similar across paper groups, while L2 Code findings were highest for AI-written papers, Theory findings were highest for ICML, and Experiment Design findings separated the groups most strongly.

PaperDoctor's L1 check frequencies were broadly similar across paper groups, while L2 Code findings were highest for AI-written papers, Theory findings were highest for ICML, and Experiment Design findings separated the groups most strongly. · CiteArk

测量结果

已评估 0/28 项

获得支持 0有争议或冲突 0尚未评估 28

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
check: Writing · paper group: Agents4Science	14.6 findings/paper	—	尚未评估
check: Writing · paper group: ICML	15.4 findings/paper	—	尚未评估
check: Writing · paper group: NatureScience	14.7 findings/paper	—	尚未评估
check: Writing · paper group: SocialScience	12.6 findings/paper	—	尚未评估
check: Figure · paper group: Agents4Science	7 findings/paper	—	尚未评估
check: Figure · paper group: ICML	6.1 findings/paper	—	尚未评估
check: Figure · paper group: NatureScience	5.6 findings/paper	—	尚未评估
check: Figure · paper group: SocialScience	5 findings/paper	—	尚未评估
check: Citation · paper group: Agents4Science	4 findings/paper	—	尚未评估
check: Citation · paper group: ICML	5.3 findings/paper	—	尚未评估
check: Citation · paper group: NatureScience	3.8 findings/paper	—	尚未评估
check: Citation · paper group: SocialScience	2.8 findings/paper	—	尚未评估

PaperDoctor's L1 check frequencies were broadly similar across paper groups, while L2 Code findings were highest for AI-written papers, Theory findings were highest for ICML, and Experiment Design findings separated the groups most strongly.

报告指标与观测值

Assessment（0）

关联运行（0）

测量结果