scan.json (19841B)
1 { 2 "paper": { 3 "title": "Interpretive Cultures: Resonance, randomness, and negotiated meaning for AI-assisted tarot divination", 4 "authors": ["Matthew Kieran Prock", "Ziv Epstein", "Hope Schroeder", "Amy Smith", "Cassandra Lee", "Vana Goblot", "Farnaz Jahanbakhsh"], 5 "year": 2026, 6 "venue": "CHI '26", 7 "arxiv_id": "2602.11367", 8 "doi": "10.1145/3772318.3791571" 9 }, 10 "scan_version": 2, 11 "active_modules": [], 12 "methodology_tags": ["qualitative"], 13 "key_findings": "Through 12 semi-structured interviews with tarot practitioners who use AI, the paper identifies three patterns of AI use in divination: navigating inner uncertainties, providing alternative perspectives, and streamlining/expanding practice. Using Rosa's Theory of Resonance, the authors trace these along four axes (internal, horizontal, diagonal, vertical) and find AI both enables and inhibits interpretive meaning-making. The paper offers design recommendations for AI systems supporting non-causal interpretive tasks, emphasizing preservation of ambiguity and user agency.", 14 "checklist": { 15 "artifacts": { 16 "code_released": { 17 "applies": true, 18 "answer": false, 19 "justification": "No code repository or analysis scripts are mentioned or released." 20 }, 21 "data_released": { 22 "applies": true, 23 "answer": false, 24 "justification": "Interview transcripts and codebooks are not released. No data repository is mentioned." 25 }, 26 "environment_specified": { 27 "applies": false, 28 "answer": false, 29 "justification": "Qualitative interview study with no computational environment to specify." 30 }, 31 "reproduction_instructions": { 32 "applies": true, 33 "answer": false, 34 "justification": "No reproduction instructions provided. Interview questions are included in the appendix, which partially supports replication, but no step-by-step guide exists." 35 } 36 }, 37 "statistical_methodology": { 38 "confidence_intervals_or_error_bars": { 39 "applies": false, 40 "answer": false, 41 "justification": "Qualitative thematic analysis study with no quantitative results requiring confidence intervals." 42 }, 43 "significance_tests": { 44 "applies": false, 45 "answer": false, 46 "justification": "No quantitative comparisons are made; this is a qualitative study." 47 }, 48 "effect_sizes_reported": { 49 "applies": false, 50 "answer": false, 51 "justification": "Qualitative study with no effect sizes to report." 52 }, 53 "sample_size_justified": { 54 "applies": true, 55 "answer": true, 56 "justification": "The paper discusses saturation: 'Both co-first authors coded this final interview independently... and independently found them to coherently apply to the twelfth interview as well, suggesting code saturation.' They also discuss thematic stability and cite saturation literature (Buckley 2022, Hennink et al. 2017, Saunders et al. 2018)." 57 }, 58 "variance_reported": { 59 "applies": false, 60 "answer": false, 61 "justification": "No quantitative experimental runs; qualitative study." 62 } 63 }, 64 "evaluation_design": { 65 "baselines_included": { 66 "applies": false, 67 "answer": false, 68 "justification": "Exploratory qualitative study with no system or method to compare against baselines." 69 }, 70 "baselines_contemporary": { 71 "applies": false, 72 "answer": false, 73 "justification": "No baselines applicable to this qualitative interview study." 74 }, 75 "ablation_study": { 76 "applies": false, 77 "answer": false, 78 "justification": "No system with components to ablate." 79 }, 80 "multiple_metrics": { 81 "applies": false, 82 "answer": false, 83 "justification": "Qualitative study with no quantitative metrics." 84 }, 85 "human_evaluation": { 86 "applies": false, 87 "answer": false, 88 "justification": "No system outputs to evaluate; the study IS a human interview study, not evaluating a system's outputs." 89 }, 90 "held_out_test_set": { 91 "applies": false, 92 "answer": false, 93 "justification": "No test set; qualitative interview study." 94 }, 95 "per_category_breakdown": { 96 "applies": true, 97 "answer": true, 98 "justification": "Results are broken down along the four axes of Resonance Theory (internal, horizontal, diagonal, vertical) and three empirical themes (navigating uncertainties, tools for perspective, streamlining/expanding practice)." 99 }, 100 "failure_cases_discussed": { 101 "applies": true, 102 "answer": true, 103 "justification": "The paper discusses cases where AI inhibited intuition (Section 5.2.1), concerns about sycophancy (P3, P9), and widespread negativity toward AI in the tarot community. Multiple participants expressed doubt about AI's objectivity." 104 }, 105 "negative_results_reported": { 106 "applies": true, 107 "answer": true, 108 "justification": "The paper reports that many participants found AI inhibited their intuitive grasp (P3, P4, P5, P6, P9, P12), and that 76.7% of recruitment requests to forums never received a response, with 70% of responses being rejections." 109 } 110 }, 111 "claims_and_evidence": { 112 "abstract_claims_supported": { 113 "applies": true, 114 "answer": true, 115 "justification": "The abstract claims are appropriately hedged ('we identify distinct ways practitioners incorporate AI') and are supported by the interview findings in Section 5. Design recommendations are provided in Section 6.1." 116 }, 117 "causal_claims_justified": { 118 "applies": false, 119 "answer": false, 120 "justification": "The paper makes no causal claims. Findings are framed descriptively (e.g., 'we identify,' 'we observe,' 'participants described')." 121 }, 122 "generalization_bounded": { 123 "applies": true, 124 "answer": true, 125 "justification": "Section 7 explicitly limits generalizability: 'we note that our work has several limitations... our small sample size of only 12 participants,' North American participants only due to IRB restrictions, and selection bias toward AI-positive tarot practitioners." 126 }, 127 "alternative_explanations_discussed": { 128 "applies": true, 129 "answer": true, 130 "justification": "Section 7 discusses selection bias (participants are inherently AI-positive), recruitment challenges that may skew results, and how varying expertise levels and trust in AI critically shape findings. They also note that AI systems evolve and may shift future results." 131 }, 132 "proxy_outcome_distinction": { 133 "applies": true, 134 "answer": true, 135 "justification": "The paper's claims match its methodology: it claims to identify patterns of AI use through interviews, and reports interview findings. It does not over-frame interview data as measuring broader phenomena beyond what participants reported." 136 } 137 }, 138 "setup_transparency": { 139 "model_versions_specified": { 140 "applies": false, 141 "answer": false, 142 "justification": "The study interviews people about their AI use; it does not itself use AI models experimentally. Participants mention ChatGPT, Midjourney, DeepSeek but these are user-reported, not controlled by the study." 143 }, 144 "prompts_provided": { 145 "applies": false, 146 "answer": false, 147 "justification": "The study does not use prompting as part of its methodology." 148 }, 149 "hyperparameters_reported": { 150 "applies": false, 151 "answer": false, 152 "justification": "No AI models are used experimentally by the researchers." 153 }, 154 "scaffolding_described": { 155 "applies": false, 156 "answer": false, 157 "justification": "No agentic scaffolding is used in this qualitative study." 158 }, 159 "data_preprocessing_documented": { 160 "applies": true, 161 "answer": true, 162 "justification": "Section 4.1 describes the full analytic process: initial open coding, constant comparison, axial and selective coding, iterative refinement with multiple coders, consensus-driven discussion, and double-coding checks. Zoom transcripts were manually cleaned." 163 } 164 }, 165 "limitations_and_scope": { 166 "limitations_section_present": { 167 "applies": true, 168 "answer": true, 169 "justification": "Section 7 is titled 'Limitations and Future Work' and provides substantive discussion." 170 }, 171 "threats_to_validity_specific": { 172 "applies": true, 173 "answer": true, 174 "justification": "Section 7 discusses specific threats: small sample (12 participants), North American only due to IRB/GDPR restrictions, selection bias toward AI-positive practitioners, stigma limiting recruitment, and how expertise level interacts with findings." 175 }, 176 "scope_boundaries_stated": { 177 "applies": true, 178 "answer": true, 179 "justification": "Section 7 explicitly states: 'the scope of this research is limited to tarot readers, not tarot consumers,' acknowledges geographic restriction to North America, and notes the sample is biased toward those with 'some interest and appreciation towards AI interaction.'" 180 } 181 }, 182 "data_integrity": { 183 "raw_data_available": { 184 "applies": true, 185 "answer": false, 186 "justification": "Interview transcripts are not released. No raw data is available for independent verification." 187 }, 188 "data_collection_described": { 189 "applies": true, 190 "answer": true, 191 "justification": "Section 4 describes the data collection in detail: semi-structured interviews over Zoom, approximately 60 minutes each, audio/video recorded and used to clean auto-generated transcripts, then deleted. Interview questions are provided in the appendix." 192 }, 193 "recruitment_methods_described": { 194 "applies": true, 195 "answer": true, 196 "justification": "Section 4 describes recruitment in detail: purposive sampling through Reddit, Discord, Instagram, TikTok, a local tarot shop, selection by keywords, screening survey with three short-form questions, eligibility criteria (18+, practice tarot, use AI), and GDPR exclusion of EU/UK participants." 197 }, 198 "data_pipeline_documented": { 199 "applies": true, 200 "answer": true, 201 "justification": "Section 4.1 documents the full pipeline from interview → transcript cleaning → open coding → constant comparison → axial/selective coding → consensus discussion → interpretive coding → double-coding → saturation check with 12th interview." 202 } 203 }, 204 "conflicts_of_interest": { 205 "funding_disclosed": { 206 "applies": true, 207 "answer": false, 208 "justification": "No funding acknowledgments or grant numbers are mentioned in the paper." 209 }, 210 "affiliations_disclosed": { 211 "applies": true, 212 "answer": true, 213 "justification": "Author affiliations are clearly listed: University of Michigan, MIT, Queen Mary University, Goldsmiths University of London." 214 }, 215 "funder_independent_of_outcome": { 216 "applies": true, 217 "answer": false, 218 "justification": "No funding information disclosed, so independence cannot be assessed." 219 }, 220 "financial_interests_declared": { 221 "applies": true, 222 "answer": false, 223 "justification": "No competing interests statement is provided. The positionality statement discusses personal connections to tarot but does not address financial interests." 224 } 225 }, 226 "contamination": { 227 "training_cutoff_stated": { 228 "applies": false, 229 "answer": false, 230 "justification": "The paper does not evaluate a pre-trained model's capability on any benchmark. It is a qualitative interview study." 231 }, 232 "train_test_overlap_discussed": { 233 "applies": false, 234 "answer": false, 235 "justification": "No benchmark evaluation; qualitative interview study." 236 }, 237 "benchmark_contamination_addressed": { 238 "applies": false, 239 "answer": false, 240 "justification": "No benchmark evaluation; qualitative interview study." 241 } 242 }, 243 "human_studies": { 244 "pre_registered": { 245 "applies": true, 246 "answer": false, 247 "justification": "No mention of pre-registration (OSF, AsPredicted, or similar)." 248 }, 249 "irb_or_ethics_approval": { 250 "applies": true, 251 "answer": true, 252 "justification": "Section 4 states: 'This study was approved by our Institutional Review Board (IRB).'" 253 }, 254 "demographics_reported": { 255 "applies": true, 256 "answer": true, 257 "justification": "Table 1 reports age range, gender identity, education level, length of tarot practice, skill level, and country for all 12 participants." 258 }, 259 "inclusion_exclusion_criteria": { 260 "applies": true, 261 "answer": true, 262 "justification": "Section 4 states criteria: 'at least 18 years of age, practice tarot and/or divination, and apply AI to their personal tarot or divination practices.' EU/UK participants excluded due to GDPR. Screening survey required three short-form responses." 263 }, 264 "randomization_described": { 265 "applies": false, 266 "answer": false, 267 "justification": "Not an experimental study with treatment/control conditions; semi-structured interview study." 268 }, 269 "blinding_described": { 270 "applies": false, 271 "answer": false, 272 "justification": "Not an experimental study; blinding is not applicable to semi-structured interviews." 273 }, 274 "attrition_reported": { 275 "applies": true, 276 "answer": false, 277 "justification": "The paper does not report how many people responded to the screening survey versus how many were ultimately interviewed. No attrition or dropout information is provided." 278 } 279 }, 280 "cost_and_practicality": { 281 "inference_cost_reported": { 282 "applies": false, 283 "answer": false, 284 "justification": "Qualitative interview study; no computational inference to report costs for." 285 }, 286 "compute_budget_stated": { 287 "applies": false, 288 "answer": false, 289 "justification": "Qualitative interview study; no significant computation involved." 290 } 291 } 292 }, 293 "claims": [ 294 { 295 "claim": "Tarot practitioners use AI in three main ways: navigating inner uncertainties, as tools for perspective, and streamlining/expanding divinatory practice.", 296 "evidence": "Section 5.1 presents extensive interview quotes from participants across all three categories, with specific examples from P1-P12.", 297 "supported": "moderate" 298 }, 299 { 300 "claim": "AI both enables and inhibits internal resonance (self-connection) in tarot practice, with many practitioners finding AI's instant answers undermine intuitive engagement.", 301 "evidence": "Section 5.2.1 reports that many participants (P3, P4, P5, P6, P9, P12) found AI inhibited intuition, while some (P2, P10, P11) found ways to use specific AI features to deepen self-connection.", 302 "supported": "moderate" 303 }, 304 { 305 "claim": "Some practitioners developed parasocial connections with AI and reduced interpretive advice-seeking from human friends.", 306 "evidence": "Section 5.2.2 reports this for P1, P2, P7, P8, P9, P10, P11, with quotes about convenience and not wanting to 'bug' friends.", 307 "supported": "moderate" 308 }, 309 { 310 "claim": "76.7% of recruitment requests to forum moderators received no response, and 70% of responses were rejections, with 57% of rejections citing AI.", 311 "evidence": "Section 5.1.1 provides these specific percentages from the recruitment process.", 312 "supported": "moderate" 313 } 314 ], 315 "red_flags": [ 316 { 317 "flag": "Small sample with selection bias", 318 "detail": "Only 12 participants, all self-selected tarot practitioners who already use AI, recruited from online communities. The authors acknowledge this bias but the sample is inherently non-representative of the broader tarot community or AI users generally." 319 }, 320 { 321 "flag": "Geographic restriction presented without full context", 322 "detail": "Sample limited to North America (US, Canada, Mexico) due to IRB/GDPR restrictions. Tarot traditions and AI attitudes vary significantly across cultures, limiting the applicability of the theoretical framework." 323 }, 324 { 325 "flag": "Positionality as potential bias source", 326 "detail": "Authors state they have 'over 40 years' combined tarot experience and some work in a 'spiritual art collective' exploring AI divination. While disclosed in the positionality statement, this deep personal investment could shape interpretation of the data." 327 } 328 ], 329 "cited_papers": [ 330 { 331 "title": "Generative artificial intelligence enhances individual creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content", 332 "authors": ["Anil R. Doshi", "Oliver P. Hauser"], 333 "year": 2024, 334 "doi": "10.1126/sciadv.adn5290", 335 "relevance": "Empirical evidence on AI's homogenization effect on creative outputs, relevant to AI impact on subjective work." 336 }, 337 { 338 "title": "Measuring the impact of early-2025 AI on experienced open-source developer productivity", 339 "authors": ["Joel Becker", "Nate Rush", "Elizabeth Barnes", "David Rein"], 340 "year": 2025, 341 "arxiv_id": "2507.09089", 342 "relevance": "Counter-evidence on AI developer productivity, finding AI may slow developers down." 343 }, 344 { 345 "title": "The Impact of AI on Developer Productivity: Evidence from GitHub Copilot", 346 "authors": ["Kevin Peng", "Eirini Kalliamvakou", "Peter Cihon", "Murat Demirer"], 347 "year": 2023, 348 "relevance": "Key paper on AI-assisted programming productivity cited as evidence that AI increases efficiency." 349 }, 350 { 351 "title": "Towards understanding sycophancy in language models", 352 "authors": ["Mrinank Sharma", "Meg Tong", "Tomasz Korbak"], 353 "year": 2023, 354 "relevance": "LLM sycophancy is a key concern raised by participants and discussed in design recommendations." 355 }, 356 { 357 "title": "Homogenization Effects of Large Language Models on Human Creative Ideation", 358 "authors": ["Barrett R. Anderson", "Jash Hemant Shah", "Max Kreminski"], 359 "year": 2024, 360 "doi": "10.1145/3635636.3656204", 361 "relevance": "Evidence of LLM homogenization in creative tasks, relevant to AI impact on interpretive diversity." 362 }, 363 { 364 "title": "Large Language Models in Qualitative Research: Uses, Tensions, and Intentions", 365 "authors": ["Hope Schroeder", "Marianne Aubin Le Quéré", "Casey Randazzo", "David Mimno", "Sarita Schoenebeck"], 366 "year": 2025, 367 "relevance": "Explores tensions of LLM use in qualitative research, closely related to interpretive AI work." 368 }, 369 { 370 "title": "Just Put a Human in the Loop? Investigating LLM-Assisted Annotation for Subjective Tasks", 371 "authors": ["Hope Schroeder", "Deb Roy", "Jad Kabbara"], 372 "year": 2025, 373 "doi": "10.18653/v1/2025.findings-acl.1323", 374 "relevance": "Shows AI suggestions in subjective annotation tasks increase homogenization and can slow users down." 375 }, 376 { 377 "title": "Generative artificial intelligence, human creativity, and art", 378 "authors": ["Eric B. Zhou", "Dokyun Lee"], 379 "year": 2024, 380 "doi": "10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae052", 381 "relevance": "Empirical study on generative AI's impact on human creativity and art production." 382 } 383 ] 384 }