Deyu Jing | Searcharxiv

arXiv2026

Traceable Scholarship: Page Anchors and Ariadne's Thread for Humanistic Inquiry in the Age of Generative AI

Generative AI lets large language models produce scholarly-looking text within seconds, yet fluency does not equal valid explanation. The deepest risk is not factual error alone but the appearance that an explanation is already established without clear sources, page numbers, editions, or evidence. We liken the page anchor to Ariadne's thread: within the labyrinth of generative fluency, it is the thread that leads the scholar back to the source. This paper proposes Traceable Scholarship as the minimum normative condition for AI-assisted humanistic research, situating it across the three revolutions of knowledge infrastructure: print, digital, and generative AI. We introduce page anchors, dual page numbers, citation-first generation, NO_EVIDENCE, human verification, four-level compliance, and Scope Contract, and present AIH-Infra as a three-layer reference implementation: Contexture (document structuring), Open WebUI AIH-Infra (traceable knowledge base), and AIH-Infra MCP Server (agent gateway). A case study on a 29-volume Kant Akademie-Ausgabe knowledge base illustrates how traceability supports retrieval correction, evidence grading, and judgment downgrading. Traceability is not a software feature; it is the condition under which humanistic research can remain public and refutable in the age of generative AI.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

When Does an Interpretation Count as Established? The Formation, Evaluation, and Responsibility of Interpretation in Generative AI

Generative AI research has increasingly evaluated factuality, citation, coverage, and report structure. Yet passing such local checks does not by itself show that a humanistic interpretation has been established. This paper asks how an interpretation comes to be recognized within sociotechnical processes. It introduces three connected concepts. Interpretive appearance names the gap between the finished form of an output and the publicly traceable process through which materials, counterevidence, and revisions constrained the judgment. The evaluation contract names the bounded materials, tasks, criteria, permitted inferences, and failure conditions within which a local judgment is valid. Standing substitution names the unwarranted conversion of a genuine local pass into a stronger claim that an interpretation, result, or research capability has been established, without commensurate new evidence or bridging arguments. The paper then examines responsibility for judgment: a text may acquire recognition while no public structure remains for stating reasons, answering objections, revising, downgrading, or withdrawing the conclusion. Humanistic scholarship provides a revealing test because new materials and conceptual distinctions can alter both the question and the criteria of evaluation. The paper therefore develops delayed closure as a practice of keeping recognized interpretations revisable and proposes five public requirements concerning materials and versions, evidential roles, failure, contract revision, and responsibility. The argument is conceptual and normative: it does not claim to offer a benchmark or to determine whether models possess understanding. It instead explains why local evaluation, finished textual form, and public recognition must not be treated as sufficient evidence that an interpretation has been formed.

cs.CY↗