The Inference Report

As artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into social-emotional learning (SEL) initiatives, the need for evidence-based policy has become paramount. We systematically reviewed 65 peer-reviewed papers that examine the intersection of AI and SEL to investigate how these studies articulate policy implications. Our analysis revealed a substantial "policy deficit" in the current AI x SEL literature: nearly three-quarters of the studies did not mention policy implications at all. Using the "WH-question" framework (Who, What, Why, When/Where, and How), we map the policy implications narratives present in the literature and show that they often lack the specificity and actor-oriented guidance required for effective evidence-informed policymaking. We find a significant association between publication venue and policy engagement, suggesting that current academic incentive structures may prioritize technical innovation and pedagogical feasibility over explicit engagement with governance and regulation. This study identifies a "techno-solutionist" trap, where technical potential is foregrounded while the institutional conditions for responsible implementation remain under-specified. We conclude by proposing a shift from "implication-as-afterthought" to "implication-as-methodology" and offer a set of actionable guidelines for researchers, editors, reviewers, and policymakers to bridge the gap between AI innovation and educational governance. Rather than presenting policy as a generic ethical horizon, we argue that AI-SEL studies should systematically specify Who should act, What actions are recommended, Why these actions are needed, When and Where they apply, and How strongly they are framed, thereby strengthening the translation of AI x SEL innovation into educational policy and practice.

Social media platforms increasingly use AI-based credibility indicators to help users judge misinformation. Unlike individual human-AI decision-making, these indicators are embedded in information spread: users see both an AI prediction and earlier judgments shaped by the same AI, and their own judgments may then enter the public history. Yet how to analytically characterize this process remains under-explored. We therefore introduce a social-learning lens for this setting by extending the classical Bayesian cascade model with the AI indicator as a shared public signal. The resulting Gateway condition compares the evidence from the AI prediction with users' private impressions. Through this view, we show that AI changes what public history means. Crowd agreement may reflect accumulated independent human evidence, or repeated dependence on the same AI prediction. This creates a preservation-correction trade-off: stronger reliance on AI can preserve correct predictions, but can also lock in incorrect ones by blocking corrective private impressions. We calibrate the model using human-subject data on news veracity judgments. Although the AI outperforms human users, the average user weights it below her own impression but above several peer judgments, while individual users vary from discounting the AI to relying on it enough to cascade. Simulations show that over-reliance on a weak AI is especially harmful, and that diversifying AI signals across users can better keep the crowd informative. We conclude with implications for understanding human-AI interaction in information spread and designing misinformation interventions.

Large language models can support writing, but existing tools require users to explicitly articulate prompts-particularly burdensome in creative writing, where intentions are often ambiguous. Proactive support that infers users' needs from writing interactions could alleviate this burden, but raises two challenges: determining what support to provide and when to intervene. This work focuses on the former. We hypothesize that Flower and Hayes' cognitive process theory of writing-which characterizes writing through six cognitive processes-offers an interpretable bridge between observable writing behavior and appropriate support types. Through a formative study and literature review, we identify 14 writing support types associated with these cognitive processes, along with characteristic interaction behaviors linked to each process. We then instantiate this framework in AToM CoWriter, which infers support needs from writing interactions and document context. Two within-subjects studies (N = 21) provide initial evidence that this approach improves expressiveness and idea exploration, and that cognitive process inference increases engagement with proactive suggestions. These findings suggest that cognitive processes can provide a promising basis for support selection in proactive writing systems.

We present TSExplorer, a cross-platform tool for interactive annotation and exploration of time-series data. The tool enables users to inspect high-dimensional datasets through multiple complementary 2D visualizations derived from high-dimensional feature representations. TSExplorer is designed as a general-purpose research tool supporting a wide range of workflows, including exploratory data analysis, annotation of unlabeled or partially-labeled datasets, comparison of feature representations, and post-hoc inspection and refinement of existing labels with interactive visual feedback.

Understanding how psychiatric patients subjectively experienced a clinical conversation is important for feedback and alliance-related process monitoring. While interviewers form post-session judgments about patient experience, these judgments do not always match patients' self-reports. Automatic approaches for predicting perceived interaction quality from conversation have been proposed, but it remains unclear whether such approaches can complement human judgment rather than simply replicate it. To address this gap, we evaluate a clinician-support framework in which post-session interviewer ratings are combined with automatic language-based predictions to estimate patient-reported interaction quality in free clinical interviews. We assess this integration across multiple standard model types, including Ridge, SVR, MLP, GRU, and BiLSTM, all trained on sentence embeddings extracted from dyadic transcripts of 107 free conversations between psychiatric patients and interviewers. Our results show that combining interviewer judgments with model predictions through simple averaging yields the strongest overall performance. The interviewer-only baseline reached a Pearson correlation of 0.365. Among fully automatic models, Ridge achieved the strongest Pearson correlation (r = 0.286), while BiLSTM achieved r = 0.270. The strongest result was obtained by BiLSTM interviewer integration (r = 0.403). Our findings suggest that automatic language analysis and interviewer judgment capture complementary aspects of patient experience and that their combination provides a more accurate approximation of the patient's own report than either source alone.

Integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly generative AI, into medical training has prompted concerns about learner over-reliance, misuse, and erosion of foundational clinical competencies. We propose a conceptual reframing at the decision level: the problem is not misuse but misclassification - a mechanistic failure of real-time metacognitive evaluation in selecting a subzone-inappropriate AI interaction mode. Drawing on "SCAN" (Substitute, Complement, Aid, Non-Negotiable), a human-centric decision-making framework for generative AI task allocation grounded in Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development and metacognition, we advance the emerging social-constructivist conversation around AI in medical education by offering a testable account of AI's role in clinical reasoning development. This framework yields testable predictions for how misclassification can be detected, mitigated, and, more importantly, prevented in the clinical learning environment. Regarding clinical reasoning development, we show how trajectories of skill acquisition (upskilling) and failure (the triad of skill failure: de-skilling, never-skilling, and mis-skilling) operate at the individual task level in ways that fixed-phase, cohort-wide treatments fail to capture. We further identify passive engagement within correctly classified AI-scaffolded tasks as a particularly insidious, detection-resistant pathway to mis-skilling - one requiring subzone re-identification from AI assistance to expert assistance, with human experts serving as epistemic auditors. The paper operationalizes SCAN for clinical curriculum design, supervision, and assessment, and opens an empirical research agenda grounded in cognitive science. This paradigm shift from misuse to misclassification is not semantic: it offers educators a clear perspective on what to look for, what to assess, and what to intervene on.