Watching AI evolve.
Understanding what comes next.
The current source text is the original text and can be switched to the Chinese translation.
arXiv:2610.33001v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Academic revision presents a governance problem when legitimate writing objectives conflict. Writing-process and social-science research show that revision is recursive and that wording carries epistemic and disciplinary commitments. Those literatures identify important constraints but do not settle which objective should prevail when concision, outlet form or stylistic variation conflicts with evidence and claim boundaries. This paper models revision as an admissibility problem under ordered constraints. Task-relative invariants, contextual constraints and mutable presentation choices define the admissible space; a claim-preservation contract links evidence and judgement to an authorised claim boundary. Four governance propositions specify preservation, precedence, context and sufficiency. The Academic Writing Filter implements the model by screening candidate revisions; it is not a universal definition or classifier of good academic writing. The contribution is a technology-independent mechanism for changing presentation without silently changing the research argument.
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .
The content of this article comes from arXiv cs.CL，Copyright belongs to the original author and publisher.
Read the original ↗Discuss the facts and ideas with respect. Comments appear after moderation.
Loading comments…