Claims

Authorship scores were highly concentrated near the maximum of the rubric scale

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2029: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Authorship had the highest dimension mean (18.842), a median of 20.00, strong negative skewness (−2.771), and high kurtosis (7.979). → Shen 2026

Evidence

Shen 2026

Shen, N., Lee, L. S., and He, A. (2026). Generative AI in creative education: baseline-linked evidence on learning processes, artistic performance, and authorship. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1956939

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Descriptive statistics of the 133-case dataset (Table 1, Figure 1B) show authorship concentrated near the maximum 20-point score, while technique and completion retained wider dispersion with standard deviations above 2.00. These are descriptive values, not effect sizes.

"Authorship had the highest mean (18.842) and a median of 20.00, with strong negative skewness (−2.771) and high kurtosis (7.979)."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id authorship-ceiling-concentration
title Authorship scores were highly concentrated near the maximum of the rubric scale
description Authorship scores were highly concentrated near the maximum of the rubric scale
status review
evidence_strength moderate
newest_evidence 2026
recheck_by 2029
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-10
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — shen-2026

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.