ReviewCommunications psychology2026
Understanding large language models demands distinguishing human projection from machine cognition.
Review in Communications psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current efforts to understand Large Language Models (LLMs) are largely metaphorical. Researchers map LLMs onto familiar domains, from physics and neuroscience to psychology and sociology, each illuminating specific facets while obscuring others. We chart these metaphors across mechanistic, behavioral, and interactive scales and delineate their explanatory boundaries. Crucially, this metaphorical projection creates a recursive loop of anthropomorphism, fueling the "genuine understanding" versus "pattern matching" impasse. As an alternative approach, we propose machine experientialism, positing that LLMs build their own form of understanding from training corpora. The priority shifts from cataloging LLMs' human-like traits to uncovering their distinct logic that emerges from this text-based world.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.