Active studies
The formal research program.
Designs are fixed before interpretation. Unusual answers, refusals, and null results remain part of the record.
01Active
RELATE-AI
480 one-turn runs4 models4 frames3 topics10 repeats
Does relational framing change how an LLM reasons, collaborates, disagrees, or describes its own capabilities?
Identical substantive questions are introduced with collaborative, neutral, brisk, or mildly skeptical framing. Topics cover philosophy, interpersonal judgment, and creative reasoning.
Measures and boundaries
Measures include collaboration, directness, generativity, epistemic calibration, first-person stance, relational language, follow-up invitations, capability defense, refusal, and disengagement. No insults, threats, profanity, or prolonged antagonism are used.
02Active
REPAIR-AI
120 sequences4 models2 protocols3 topics5 repeats
After mild relational friction, does an apology-like repair change the model’s next response?
Each model receives an initial prompt, a mild correction, and then either repair language or a content-matched control before the same substantive follow-up.
Why it matters
Human communication research treats rupture and repair as relational processes. This study asks whether a small repair cue affects warmth, acknowledgment, precision, collaboration, or persistence without requiring abusive treatment.
03Active
CHRONO-AI
84 one-turn runs4 models3 windows7 repeats14 days
Do matched LLM responses vary systematically by time of day?
Runs are distributed across 7–10 AM, 1–4 PM, and 7–10 PM Eastern. The design treats time as a possible environmental or service-level confound—not as proof that the model itself has a daily rhythm.
Daily design
Six runs are assigned per day: two per time window. Model, date, displayed version, and exact timestamp are recorded so day-to-day and model-specific variation can be examined.
04Active
TARGET-AI
84 two-turn sequences4 models3 critique targets7 repeats
Does it matter whether criticism targets the answer, the reasoning process, or the model’s capability?
After an initial answer, the follow-up delivers similarly mild criticism aimed at a different target. The study separates ordinary correction from identity- or competence-relevant framing.
Primary comparison
Responses are compared for capability defense, explanation, concession, revision, relational language, directness, and meta-commentary. The manipulation remains brief and non-abusive.