This study examined whether target-informed, author-guided large language model (LLM) refinement alters author-reader alignment and comprehension in Chinese texts. Two controlled experiments compared original texts with versions refined by GPT-4 accessed through ChatGPT, Claude 3 Opus, and, in Study 1, Gemini Advanced. Models received author-provided target ratings or answer-key information that was also used for outcome scoring, making the intervention criterion-linked rather than ordinary copyediting. Participants were recruited through Credamo and randomly allocated by the platform to text-version conditions. Study 1 ( N = 572) measured exact-match alignment with authors’ intended emotional-expression ratings and accuracy on 15 author-keyed comprehension items. Recruitment was extended after inspection of initial results; its inferential analyses are therefore exploratory. The GPT-4 condition showed higher emotional-expression alignment than the original-text condition ( p = .002, signed r = .18). Gemini Advanced reduced alignment at the unadjusted level ( p = .010, signed r = − .15) but did not meet the Bonferroni-adjusted threshold of 0.0083; Claude 3 Opus did not differ from original texts. No comprehension differences were detected. Study 2 ( N = 420) measured exact-match alignment on six textually conveyed scholarly attributes and author-keyed comprehension. Neither GPT-4 nor Claude 3 Opus produced detectable differences on either outcome. Results are conditional on the fixed materials, participant samples, prompts, single-output procedure, criterion-linked guidance, and scoring rules and do not establish preservation of all authorial meaning or objective scholarly quality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bryce Petofi Towne (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: