arXiv subjects

Przemysław Czuma

Publications and source records attributed to Przemysław Czuma.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

The em-dash em-beds in Congress: A population-level rise in em-dash frequency in U.S. congressional press releases at the dawn of the large-language-model era, 2021-2025

Large language models (LLMs) can leave small stylistic traces in text written with their help. The most discussed is the em-dash (U+2014), especially the unspaced form word---word, which is normal in typeset English prose but unusual in U.S. press writing, where AP style calls for spaced dashes. This study asks whether that trace is measurable in congressional press releases. In a preregistered design (OSF: 10.17605/OSF.IO/U5NEY), 146,239 scraper-sourced releases from 480 House and Senate offices (2021-2025, the open congress-press dataset) were analyzed: density of unspaced prose-form em-dashes per 1,000 characters of cleaned text, Poisson/negative-binomial models with a length offset, clustering by office. Density stayed within 0.10-0.12 per 1,000 characters through 2021-2024, then rose to 0.217 in 2025, more than twice the four-year baseline; the share of releases with such an em-dash rose from ~13% to 24.8%. The primary frequency ratio (2023-2025 vs 2021-2022) was 1.55 (95% CI 1.28-1.93; exact registered cut-off: 1.528), just above the prespecified 1.5x threshold. The rise was net-new (hyphen density stable), held within authors (75.6% of 262 continuous offices increased; p ~ 1e-16) and in a closed panel of 224 offices, and survived falsification tests: three placebo cut-offs were null, the pipeline showed no step at the 2024/2025 boundary, and continuing offices carried the rise. A segmented regression finds no step at the ChatGPT cut-off but a clear post-period acceleration; the 2025 rise is symmetric across parties and chambers. Because the registered validation gate was formally breached, the full preregistered decision rule was not met; the interpretation (broad diffusion of LLM-assisted writing as the models matured) is offered as exploratory. The em-dash remains a population-level marker, not a per-release authorship detector, and the design supports no causal claim.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

Em-ergence of the em-dash: a population-level rise in em-dash frequency in medRxiv preprints at the dawn of the large-language-model era

Large language models (LLMs) can leave subtle stylistic traces in assisted text; one of the most cited is the em-dash (Unicode U+2014). Yet no one has measured whether em-dash use has changed in the scientific literature. This study, pre-registered on the Open Science Framework (HFT8C), used the full set of medRxiv full-text XML preprints from the official Text-and-Data-Mining resource. The primary cohort was first, original versions deposited 2020-2025 with an extractable Discussion section of at least 500 characters (N = 69,632). The primary endpoint was the presence of at least one em-dash in the Discussion; the principal measure was the absolute change in its prevalence between the pre-ChatGPT era (before 30 November 2022) and the post-ChatGPT era, estimated with a logistic model with standard errors clustered by first author. The analysis plan (six supporting analyses, six sensitivity analyses, two falsification tests) was frozen before any confirmatory result was computed. Em-dash prevalence in Discussion sections rose from 4.23% before ChatGPT to 11.58% afterward, an absolute increase of 7.35 percentage points (95% CI 6.94-7.77; odds ratio 2.96, 95% CI 2.77-3.17). The rise was not a sharp jump but a gradual, delayed acceleration: near 4% through 2023, 8.0% in 2024, and 20.3% in 2025. The effect survived every feasible sensitivity analysis (7.35-7.60 pp) and both falsification tests; a placebo split within the pre-LLM era showed no meaningful change (+0.13 pp, 95% CI -0.33 to +0.58), and was essentially absent in boilerplate sections. Independent LLM-associated lexical markers and within-paper section comparisons pointed the same way. The em-dash is a population-level indicator, not a per-paper detector of LLM use, and the design cannot establish causality; it shows that something in how scientific literature is written changed markedly in the early 2020s, and roughly when.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

Invisible to humans, visible to machines: a preregistered audit of Unicode fidelity across four biomedical bibliographic APIs

Biomedical text mining, scientometrics, and the construction of training corpora for biomedical large language models (LLMs) all assume that the abstract text returned by a bibliographic API faithfully reproduces the published abstract. This pre-registered audit (OSF osf.io/269b5) tests that assumption for four widely used public APIs (PubMed E-utilities, Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar) against PubMed Central (PMC) JATS XML as a common ground truth. From a complete enumeration of the PMC Open Access subset for 2024 (about 700,000 records), a simple random sample of 4,000 English-language research articles was drawn; for each, we recorded whether Unicode characters from four pre-specified classes present in the JATS abstract (typographic punctuation, mathematical/scientific symbols, Greek letters, special whitespace) were preserved by each API. Two systematic, deterministic losses met the pre-registered criterion (upper 95% CI bound below 5%): the PubMed AbstractText field preserved typographic punctuation in only 0.6% of eligible abstracts (95% CI 0.3-1.0%), and OpenAlex preserved special whitespace in 0% (0.0-0.4%). A blinded mechanism audit attributed the first loss to character substitution and the second to inverted-index serialization. Mathematical symbols and Greek letters were preserved faithfully (over 95%) by all four APIs. Separately, Crossref returned no abstract for 24.6% of papers (coverage 75.4%, 95% CI 74.1-76.7%), concentrated in specific publishers (Elsevier and ACS: 0%). Character-level fidelity is therefore API-dependent and undocumented: the same publisher-deposited JATS text carries different surface signatures depending on the serving API, with direct consequences for tokenization-sensitive bibliometrics, corpus construction, and character-level indicators of LLM-assisted writing.

cs.DL↗