ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
The collaboration code: how humans and AI work together across millions of conversations on job tasks.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As generative AI transforms work across all fields, understanding human-AI collaboration is critically important to the future of work. This study analyzed behavioral data from millions of Claude AI conversations mapped to occupational tasks via the O*NET taxonomy to examine whether human-AI collaboration patterns are consistent with expectations derived from traditional technology adoption frameworks. Utilizing Technology Acceptance Model, Protection Motivation Theory, Social Exchange Theory, and Socio-Technical Systems Theory as parallel lenses on post-adoptive behavior, the analysis examined how interaction patterns predict AI usage intensity, risk-management behaviors, and the development of cognitive partnerships. Results demonstrated that collaborative interaction patterns, including iterative refinement and learning-oriented exchanges, predicted significantly higher AI usage intensity, consistent with expectations derived from TAM. Contrary to Protection Motivation Theory predictions, risk-management behaviors such as validation and feedback loops were positively associated with usage intensity, suggesting these function as protective engagement strategies that enable continued use, not resistance mechanisms. Analysis of extended thinking mode usage suggested distinct trust pathways: delegation trust, where users rely on AI's autonomous reasoning, versus collaboration trust, built through iterative dialogue, although sensitivity analyses indicate that task complexity may partly account for this divergence. A cross-level reversal emerged whereby augmentation patterns positively predicted usage intensity at the task level but negatively predicted user adoption at the cluster level, indicating that depth and breadth of AI use follow different dynamics. These findings challenge assumptions that caution suppresses AI use and suggest that effective human-AI partnership supports cognitive partnerships through multiple complementary pathways. For practitioners and leaders, supporting diverse ways of interacting with AI can be important for successful integration. The analyses drew on the Anthropic Economic Index dataset of 3,365 occupational tasks grouped into 593 task clusters, with model sample sizes varying by hypothesis.
Indexed as
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.