The cohort's baseline perception profile shows high endorsement of critical-thinking risk and training interest and substantially more cautious trust for complex-task use than for accuracy¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2031: baselines and conditions change
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? Pre-instruction responses show high endorsement of critical-thinking risk and training interest, moderate distinguishing capability, and more cautious complex-task trust than accuracy trust. → Yongkyung Oh 2026
Evidence¶
Yongkyung Oh 2026¶
Yongkyung Oh, Lynn Talton, Alex Bui. (2026). Engagement Intensity as a Learner-Modeling Signal for Adaptive AI Ethics Instruction. KDD 2026 AI for Education Day, at the ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD '26). https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.18548 doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.18548
q2 · i? · associational · r1
Descriptive response distributions for the five Likert items from the full cohort of 93 trainees, summarized in Figure 1. The article treats the five items as distinct perception facets rather than pooling them into a composite.
"The profile shows high endorsement of critical-thinking risk and training interest, moderate confidence in distinguishing capability, and substantially more cautious trust for complex-task use than for general scientific accuracy."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Self-reported LLM usage frequency shows Holm-corrected associations with all five baseline AI perception outcomes, strongest for complex-task trust, accuracy trust, and critical-thinking risk — related
- Self-rated LLM familiarity is a weaker secondary intake signal, surviving Holm correction for three of five outcomes with a bottom-anchored pattern — related
- The threshold-like usage pattern at the lower end of the scale is strongest for training interest and accuracy trust rather than uniform across outcomes — related
- High-achieving students less often endorse AI-supported autonomy, effective learning, and active engagement, and more often agree that reliance on AI hinders critical thinking and independent problem solving — related
- Prior AI education shows no family-wise association with any baseline perception outcome, with at most small effect sizes, under both three-group and two-group codings — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
baseline-perception-profile-graduate-trainees |
title |
The cohort's baseline perception profile shows high endorsement of critical-thinking risk and training interest and substantially more cautious trust for complex-task use than for accuracy |
description |
The cohort's baseline perception profile shows high endorsement of critical-thinking risk and training interest and substantially more cautious trust for complex-task use than for accuracy |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
recheck_by |
2031 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-10 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — yongkyung-oh-2026 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.