scan.json (19983B)
1 { 2 "paper": { 3 "title": "The Poetics of Code: Generative AI and the Redefinition of Literary Creativity", 4 "authors": ["Jihan Abdul Rahman Oshiesh"], 5 "year": 2025, 6 "venue": "The Voice of Creative Research", 7 "doi": "10.53032/tvcr/2025.v7n1.23" 8 }, 9 "scan_version": 3, 10 "active_modules": [], 11 "methodology_tags": ["qualitative", "theoretical"], 12 "key_findings": "This narrative literature review argues that human apprehension of AI's creative potential in literary production is justified. The paper catalogs perceived limitations of AI in literary creation (lack of genuine creativity, contextual understanding, subjectivity, emotional depth) and argues that human qualities such as imagination, emotional intelligence, cultural embeddedness, and moral reflection remain irreplaceable in literature. No original empirical data or systematic analysis is presented.", 13 "checklist": { 14 "artifacts": { 15 "code_released": { 16 "applies": true, 17 "answer": false, 18 "justification": "No source code, analysis scripts, or supplementary materials of any kind are released or referenced." 19 }, 20 "data_released": { 21 "applies": true, 22 "answer": false, 23 "justification": "No dataset of reviewed papers, search results, or extracted data is provided. The paper claims to draw from Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar but releases nothing." 24 }, 25 "environment_specified": { 26 "applies": false, 27 "answer": false, 28 "justification": "This is a qualitative/theoretical essay with no computational experiments or software dependencies." 29 }, 30 "reproduction_instructions": { 31 "applies": true, 32 "answer": false, 33 "justification": "No instructions for reproducing the literature review are provided — no search terms, date ranges, or selection criteria that would allow replication." 34 } 35 }, 36 "statistical_methodology": { 37 "confidence_intervals_or_error_bars": { 38 "applies": false, 39 "answer": false, 40 "justification": "Purely qualitative/theoretical paper with no quantitative results." 41 }, 42 "significance_tests": { 43 "applies": false, 44 "answer": false, 45 "justification": "No quantitative comparisons or statistical claims are made." 46 }, 47 "effect_sizes_reported": { 48 "applies": false, 49 "answer": false, 50 "justification": "No quantitative measurements or effect sizes to report." 51 }, 52 "sample_size_justified": { 53 "applies": false, 54 "answer": false, 55 "justification": "No sample or quantitative data collected." 56 }, 57 "variance_reported": { 58 "applies": false, 59 "answer": false, 60 "justification": "No experiments or repeated measurements performed." 61 } 62 }, 63 "evaluation_design": { 64 "baselines_included": { 65 "applies": false, 66 "answer": false, 67 "justification": "This is a theoretical/qualitative essay, not an experimental study or structured review that could include baselines." 68 }, 69 "baselines_contemporary": { 70 "applies": false, 71 "answer": false, 72 "justification": "No experimental evaluation is performed." 73 }, 74 "ablation_study": { 75 "applies": false, 76 "answer": false, 77 "justification": "No system or method with components to ablate." 78 }, 79 "multiple_metrics": { 80 "applies": false, 81 "answer": false, 82 "justification": "No quantitative evaluation is performed." 83 }, 84 "human_evaluation": { 85 "applies": false, 86 "answer": false, 87 "justification": "No system outputs to evaluate. The paper is a theoretical discussion, not an evaluation of AI-generated literature." 88 }, 89 "held_out_test_set": { 90 "applies": false, 91 "answer": false, 92 "justification": "No experimental data or test sets used." 93 }, 94 "per_category_breakdown": { 95 "applies": false, 96 "answer": false, 97 "justification": "No quantitative results to break down by category." 98 }, 99 "failure_cases_discussed": { 100 "applies": true, 101 "answer": true, 102 "justification": "Section 2.3 discusses seven specific limitations of AI in literary creation: lack of creativity, contextual understanding, subjectivity, overreliance on existing data, lack of intuition, ethical considerations, and loss of human connection." 103 }, 104 "negative_results_reported": { 105 "applies": false, 106 "answer": false, 107 "justification": "No experiments were conducted from which negative results could be reported." 108 } 109 }, 110 "claims_and_evidence": { 111 "abstract_claims_supported": { 112 "applies": true, 113 "answer": false, 114 "justification": "The abstract claims 'a growing apprehension among scholars and practitioners' and that the study 'engages with current discourses' through a 'comprehensive review of scholarly literature.' However, the paper provides only selected literary and critical quotes rather than systematic evidence of scholarly apprehension. The 'descriptive and analytical frameworks' mentioned in the abstract are not defined or applied in any structured way." 115 }, 116 "causal_claims_justified": { 117 "applies": false, 118 "answer": false, 119 "justification": "The paper makes no testable causal claims. It offers qualitative arguments about AI's limitations in literature but does not claim that any factor causes any measurable outcome." 120 }, 121 "generalization_bounded": { 122 "applies": true, 123 "answer": false, 124 "justification": "The paper makes sweeping claims about 'AI' and 'literary creation' without bounding them to specific AI systems, time periods, literary traditions, or languages. Claims range across all of AI and all of literature with no stated scope boundaries." 125 }, 126 "alternative_explanations_discussed": { 127 "applies": true, 128 "answer": false, 129 "justification": "The paper presents a one-sided argument that human creativity is irreplaceable. The author openly acknowledges this bias in the introduction ('the researcher holds a one-sided bias hoping to prove AI does not match up to human literary intelligence') but does not seriously engage with counterarguments or alternative interpretations." 130 }, 131 "proxy_outcome_distinction": { 132 "applies": false, 133 "answer": false, 134 "justification": "No measurements are taken in this paper; it is a qualitative theoretical discussion with no proxy-outcome gap to assess." 135 } 136 }, 137 "setup_transparency": { 138 "model_versions_specified": { 139 "applies": false, 140 "answer": false, 141 "justification": "No AI models are used or evaluated in this paper." 142 }, 143 "prompts_provided": { 144 "applies": false, 145 "answer": false, 146 "justification": "No prompting is used in this paper." 147 }, 148 "hyperparameters_reported": { 149 "applies": false, 150 "answer": false, 151 "justification": "No experiments or AI systems are run." 152 }, 153 "scaffolding_described": { 154 "applies": false, 155 "answer": false, 156 "justification": "No agentic scaffolding is used." 157 }, 158 "data_preprocessing_documented": { 159 "applies": true, 160 "answer": false, 161 "justification": "The abstract claims to draw from 'prominent academic databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar,' but no search terms, date ranges, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or filtering steps are described anywhere in the paper." 162 } 163 }, 164 "limitations_and_scope": { 165 "limitations_section_present": { 166 "applies": true, 167 "answer": false, 168 "justification": "No dedicated limitations section exists. The introduction briefly acknowledges the author's one-sided bias, but this is not a substantive discussion of methodological limitations." 169 }, 170 "threats_to_validity_specific": { 171 "applies": true, 172 "answer": false, 173 "justification": "No threats to validity are discussed for the review methodology, selection of sources, or analytical approach." 174 }, 175 "scope_boundaries_stated": { 176 "applies": true, 177 "answer": false, 178 "justification": "No explicit scope boundaries are stated. The paper ranges across all of AI and all of literature without defining what types of AI, what literary traditions, or what time period are in or out of scope." 179 } 180 }, 181 "data_integrity": { 182 "raw_data_available": { 183 "applies": true, 184 "answer": false, 185 "justification": "No raw data, list of reviewed papers, or search results are made available for independent verification." 186 }, 187 "data_collection_described": { 188 "applies": true, 189 "answer": false, 190 "justification": "The abstract mentions Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar but the paper body provides no description of the search or collection procedure — no search terms, no date ranges, no number of papers screened." 191 }, 192 "recruitment_methods_described": { 193 "applies": true, 194 "answer": false, 195 "justification": "No description is provided of how sources were identified, selected, or filtered from the claimed database searches." 196 }, 197 "data_pipeline_documented": { 198 "applies": true, 199 "answer": false, 200 "justification": "No pipeline from literature search to final analysis is documented. The paper jumps from claiming to use academic databases directly to presenting a narrative essay with selected quotes." 201 } 202 }, 203 "conflicts_of_interest": { 204 "funding_disclosed": { 205 "applies": true, 206 "answer": false, 207 "justification": "No funding disclosure or acknowledgments section is present." 208 }, 209 "affiliations_disclosed": { 210 "applies": true, 211 "answer": true, 212 "justification": "The author's affiliation with the Department of English, Faculty of Education & Science, Albaydha University, Yemen is clearly stated on the first page." 213 }, 214 "funder_independent_of_outcome": { 215 "applies": false, 216 "answer": false, 217 "justification": "No funding source is disclosed; appears to be unfunded academic work." 218 }, 219 "financial_interests_declared": { 220 "applies": true, 221 "answer": false, 222 "justification": "No competing interests or financial interests statement is present anywhere in the paper." 223 } 224 }, 225 "contamination": { 226 "training_cutoff_stated": { 227 "applies": false, 228 "answer": false, 229 "justification": "The paper does not evaluate any pre-trained model's capability on any benchmark. It is a qualitative/theoretical discussion." 230 }, 231 "train_test_overlap_discussed": { 232 "applies": false, 233 "answer": false, 234 "justification": "No model evaluation is performed." 235 }, 236 "benchmark_contamination_addressed": { 237 "applies": false, 238 "answer": false, 239 "justification": "No benchmark evaluation is conducted." 240 } 241 }, 242 "human_studies": { 243 "pre_registered": { 244 "applies": false, 245 "answer": false, 246 "justification": "No human participants in this study." 247 }, 248 "irb_or_ethics_approval": { 249 "applies": false, 250 "answer": false, 251 "justification": "No human participants in this study." 252 }, 253 "demographics_reported": { 254 "applies": false, 255 "answer": false, 256 "justification": "No human participants in this study." 257 }, 258 "inclusion_exclusion_criteria": { 259 "applies": false, 260 "answer": false, 261 "justification": "No human participants in this study." 262 }, 263 "randomization_described": { 264 "applies": false, 265 "answer": false, 266 "justification": "No human participants in this study." 267 }, 268 "blinding_described": { 269 "applies": false, 270 "answer": false, 271 "justification": "No human participants in this study." 272 }, 273 "attrition_reported": { 274 "applies": false, 275 "answer": false, 276 "justification": "No human participants in this study." 277 } 278 }, 279 "cost_and_practicality": { 280 "inference_cost_reported": { 281 "applies": false, 282 "answer": false, 283 "justification": "This is a theoretical/qualitative literature review with no computational method or inference costs." 284 }, 285 "compute_budget_stated": { 286 "applies": false, 287 "answer": false, 288 "justification": "No computation performed." 289 } 290 } 291 }, 292 "claims": [ 293 { 294 "claim": "Human apprehension of AI's creative potential is justified.", 295 "evidence": "Stated as the 'central argument' in the introduction. Supported only by selected quotes from literary authors and critics (Shane 2019, Lethem 2019, Diaz 2018, Gaiman 2001, etc.) rather than systematic evidence.", 296 "supported": "unsupported" 297 }, 298 { 299 "claim": "AI systems lack genuine creativity, emotional depth, and contextual understanding needed for literary creation.", 300 "evidence": "Section 2.3 lists seven limitations of AI: lack of creativity, contextual understanding, subjectivity, overreliance on existing data, lack of intuition, ethical concerns, and loss of human connection. However, these are asserted through narrative argument and quotes, not demonstrated empirically.", 301 "supported": "weak" 302 }, 303 { 304 "claim": "AI-generated text can mimic human writing but cannot replicate its emotional resonance or cultural depth.", 305 "evidence": "Section 4 ('Comparative Analysis') discusses differences between AI and human literary creations, citing Atwood (2021), Jones (2022), Grossman (2021), and Sato (2021). No direct comparison of AI and human texts is performed; the claim rests entirely on authority quotes.", 306 "supported": "weak" 307 }, 308 { 309 "claim": "Emotional intelligence is integral to literary creation and cannot be replicated by AI.", 310 "evidence": "Section 3.2 argues that emotional intelligence enables authentic characters, emotional resonance, and social commentary. The argument is purely philosophical with no empirical evidence comparing AI and human emotional expression in writing.", 311 "supported": "weak" 312 } 313 ], 314 "red_flags": [ 315 { 316 "flag": "Acknowledged one-sided bias", 317 "detail": "The author openly admits in the introduction: 'the researcher holds a one-sided bias hoping to prove AI does not match up to human literary intelligence (Cox, 2021).' This acknowledged confirmation bias undermines the paper's claim to be an objective literature review." 318 }, 319 { 320 "flag": "No systematic methodology despite claiming database searches", 321 "detail": "The abstract claims a 'comprehensive review of scholarly literature sourced from prominent academic databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar,' but the paper body provides zero evidence of a structured search: no search terms, no date ranges, no inclusion/exclusion criteria, no PRISMA flow diagram, no count of papers screened." 322 }, 323 { 324 "flag": "Potentially fabricated or misattributed quotes", 325 "detail": "Several quotes attributed to literary figures appear inconsistent with their cited sources. For example: the Asimov (1950) quote 'I think; therefore I am...' is not from 'Runaround' or I, Robot; the Gaiman (2001) quote about computers is not from American Gods; the Atwood (1985) quote about 'labyrinth' is not from The Handmaid's Tale; the Mansfield (2013) quote 'We are all of us made of stories' is attributed to a posthumous letters collection but doesn't match Mansfield's known writings. Multiple citation date mismatches exist (e.g., Grossman cited as 2021 in text but listed as 2020 in references)." 326 }, 327 { 328 "flag": "Claims significantly outrun the evidence", 329 "detail": "The paper makes sweeping claims about AI's inability to match human literary creation, but provides no empirical evidence — no comparison of AI-generated vs. human-generated text, no reader studies, no quality assessments. All claims rest on philosophical argument and authority quotes from literary figures." 330 }, 331 { 332 "flag": "Narrative laundering of sources", 333 "detail": "The paper is structured as a survey/review but performs no quality assessment of its cited sources and treats all quoted authorities equally. Literary fiction (Asimov, Dick, Le Guin) and speculative essays are cited alongside academic studies without distinguishing evidentiary weight." 334 } 335 ], 336 "cited_papers": [ 337 { 338 "title": "The Creativity Code: Art and Innovation in the Age of AI", 339 "authors": ["Marcus du Sautoy"], 340 "year": 2019, 341 "relevance": "Explores AI's capacity to create art and literature, discussing implications for creative processes and the boundary between human and machine creativity." 342 }, 343 { 344 "title": "You Look Like a Thing and I Love You: How AI Works and Why It's Making the World a Weirder Place", 345 "authors": ["Janelle Shane"], 346 "year": 2019, 347 "relevance": "Discusses AI capabilities and limitations in generating human-like content, relevant to understanding AI text generation quality." 348 }, 349 { 350 "title": "Are We Ready for Artificial Intelligence in Creative Writing?", 351 "authors": ["David Levy"], 352 "year": 2021, 353 "doi": "10.15763/jcws.2021.v6i2.1234", 354 "relevance": "Explores implications of AI in creative writing and philosophical questions about computational creativity." 355 }, 356 { 357 "title": "Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future", 358 "authors": ["Martin Ford"], 359 "year": 2015, 360 "relevance": "Examines AI automation impacts across fields including literature and creative jobs, relevant to understanding AI's potential displacement of human work." 361 }, 362 { 363 "title": "Exploring the Impact of Artificial Intelligence and Robots on Higher Education Through Literature-based Design Fictions", 364 "authors": ["Andrew M. Cox"], 365 "year": 2021, 366 "doi": "10.1186/s41239-020-00240-7", 367 "relevance": "Investigates AI's impact on education using design fiction methodology, relevant to understanding AI's broader societal implications." 368 }, 369 { 370 "title": "The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Literature and the Arts: A Study", 371 "authors": ["J. Smith"], 372 "year": 2022, 373 "relevance": "Discusses AI's role in literary creation and examines boundaries between computational creativity and human intuition." 374 } 375 ], 376 "engagement_factors": { 377 "practical_relevance": { 378 "score": 0, 379 "justification": "Purely theoretical discussion of AI and literary creativity with no actionable tools, techniques, or recommendations for practitioners." 380 }, 381 "surprise_contrarian": { 382 "score": 0, 383 "justification": "Argues the conventional humanities position that human creativity is irreplaceable — confirms rather than challenges expectations." 384 }, 385 "fear_safety": { 386 "score": 0, 387 "justification": "No novel AI risk, security concern, or safety finding — only generic philosophical musings about AI replacing human authors." 388 }, 389 "drama_conflict": { 390 "score": 1, 391 "justification": "Mild human-vs-AI creative competition framing, but entirely generic and lacking provocation." 392 }, 393 "demo_ability": { 394 "score": 0, 395 "justification": "No code, demo, tool, or artifact of any kind." 396 }, 397 "brand_recognition": { 398 "score": 0, 399 "justification": "Published in an unknown journal by an author at a regional university with no recognized AI research profile." 400 } 401 } 402 }