匹配的起点，分化的对象：人机协作如何形成其解释内容
Matched Starts, Divergent Objects: Research-Object Formation in Human-AI Scholarly Work
浏览论文内容
中文总结 AI 辅助
该研究通过控制变量的人机协作实验，发现相同起始条件下的人机学术协作会形成不同研究对象，揭示了过程历史对学术成果的塑造作用。
中文摘要 AI 辅助
学术知识通常以稳定的形式呈现，而研究对象、主张和成果形成的过程历史却大多隐藏着。本研究探讨在匹配的起始条件下，人机学术协作如何发展，以及这些条件是否会使探究本身趋于稳定。研究使用包含843个回合的纵向语料库，同一位专家研究者从相同语料库、冻结的研究问题、起始提示、发表目标和行为规则出发，与不同的生成式AI系统开发出分支独立的学术轨迹。通过学术轨迹分析、忠实于来源的交互重构、社会二元性关系过程叠加及下游传播分析，事后重构了两条符合要求的轨迹。两条轨迹均独立地将初始的连续性问题从回忆转向可用性，但随后形成了不同的研究对象：一条轨迹最终产出了关于“连续性劳动”的手稿，即维持可用协作所需的分布式工作；另一条则产出了关于分布式、不断演变且可用性不均的项目状态的手稿。它们的分析谱系涉及失败的分析单元、被拒绝的解释、规模变化、反例和概念稳定，并传播为不同的研究问题、发现、方法、证据逻辑和学术成果。关系分析进一步表明，重要的学术变革、互惠连续性和局部实质性重构是不同的过程结构，且延续并不一定构成认知认可。研究结果证明了人机学术协作中受经验约束的研究对象形成机制，并展示了过程历史如何塑造所产生的学术对象和成果。
英文摘要
Human-artificial intelligence interaction can shape what scholarly inquiry becomes about. This study examines research-object formation in two isolated scholarly trajectories developed by the same expert researcher with Claude and ChatGPT under matched starting conditions. Both used the same five-session, 843-turn project corpus, frozen research problem, initial prompt, publication objective, and conduct rules. The subsequent scholarly-development conversations were reconstructed ex post through consequential-event analysis, a Socioduality relational-process overlay, and tracing into completed manuscripts. Both trajectories shifted the continuity problem from recall toward usability, then developed different research objects: continuity labour and distributed, evolving project state. Failed analytical units, rejected explanations, counterexamples, and changes in analytical scale shaped these objects and propagated into research questions, methods, findings, evidence logic, and theoretical contributions. Consequential scholarly change, reciprocal relational continuity, and local substantive re-formation had distinct boundaries; continued interaction did not itself establish epistemic endorsement. The findings demonstrate empirically constrained research-object formation under matched scholarly starts. For systems supporting sustained scholarly knowledge work, they motivate recoverable analytical provenance, inspectable proposal status, and source-faithful contribution records.
