Scholarly Reception

AI safety, ethics, and governance

Informed AI Regulation: Comparing the Ethical Frameworks of Leading LLM Chatbots (Chun and Elkins, arXiv:2402.01651, 2024)

• Liu et al. INVP framework (COLING 2025, page 4731) — directly adopts the confidence-scoring methodology for evaluating LLM value priorities across social decision-making scenarios.
• Jain, Calacci & Wilson (AIES 2024) — cite the audit framework for the use of toy ethical-dilemma scenarios to test LLM alignment, finding bias toward societal and cultural norms.
• Ungless et al., LLM Ethics Whitepaper (arXiv 2024) — named as a representative methodology for prompting to probe for ethical values.
• Snoswell, Kilov & Lazar (AAAI 2026 AI Alignment Track) — include it as one of 69 works in their “Beyond Verdicts” survey of LLM ethics evaluation across 2020–2025.

Position: Near to Mid-term Risks and Opportunities of Open-Source Generative AI (Eiras, Petrov, Vidgen, Schroeder de Witt, Pizzati, Elkins, et al., ICML 2024 oral)

• Paris, Moon & Guo (FAccT 2025, Paris) — name the paper as one of three openness frameworks, alongside the Model Openness Framework and Liesenfeld-Dingemanse.
• Casper, O'Brien, Longpre et al. (TMLR, March 2026) — cite it in “Open Technical Problems in Open-Weight AI Model Risk Management,” a consensus paper authored by AI safety researchers at MIT CSAIL, Stanford, Mila, Carnegie Mellon, Princeton, the UK AI Security Institute, Center for AI Safety, and Hugging Face.

Comparative Global AI Regulation: Policy Perspectives from the EU, China, and the US (Chun, Schroeder de Witt, Elkins, arXiv:2410.21279, 2024)

• Olugbade (Global Public Policy and Governance 5.2, 2025) — engages the paper with six in-text citations across the article's US, China, EU, and synthesis sections, depth of structural engagement rather than passing reference.
• Yew, Marino & Venkatasubramanian, Red Teaming AI Policy: A Taxonomy of Avoision and the EU AI Act (FAccT 2025) — engages the framework.
• Ilcic, Fuentes & Lawler (Frontiers in AI, 2025) — as a reference framework for AI governance analysis.

Computational humanities and narrative

The Shapes of Stories: Sentiment Analysis for Narrative (Cambridge University Press, 2022)

• Haram Lee (Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 2025) — discusses the book alongside Reagan et al. (Vermont Story Lab, 2016) and Nalisnick & Baird (2013) in work on sentiment analysis of literary texts and Shakespeare sonnets.
• Bilstrup et al., Litteraturmaskinen (ACL 2026) — names Shapes of Stories specifically for aesthetic positioning alongside work on character analysis, narrative structure, literary quality, and canonicity.
• Tianyou He, Fritz Breithaupt, Sandra Kübler & Thomas T. Hills (Scientific Reports 13:2448, 2023) — methodology grounds their 25,728-retelling study.
• Hamilton, Wilkens & Piper, NarraBench (EACL 2026) — methodology as evaluation infrastructure.
• Yeh et al., Story Ribbons (IEEE TVCG 2026) — visual analytics extension.
• Rebora (Digital Humanities Quarterly, 2023) — field survey.
• Nielsen, Christensen & Bolwig (Sustainability Science 20.1, 2025) — cross-disciplinary travel into sustainability transitions research; name sentiment analysis (Elkins 2022) as one of two specific quantifiable methods that could scale their comparative-sustainabilities model, paired with text-similarity analysis.
• Adopted across the Cambridge Elements in Digital Literary Studies series.

Can GPT-3 Pass a Writer's Turing Test? (Elkins and Chun, Journal of Cultural Analytics 5.2, September 2020)

• Luciano Floridi and Massimo Chiriatti (Minds and Machines 30, 2020) — for the empirical claim that “GPT-3 writes better than many people.”
• Martin Paul Eve, The Digital Humanities and Literary Studies (Oxford University Press, 2022) — page 57, with full citation at footnote 88.
• Hagendorff et al. on machine psychology (arXiv 2303.13988, 2023) and Draxler et al. on the AI Ghostwriter Effect (ACM TOCHI 31.2, 2024).
• The writer's Turing test concept has been adopted as a named framework across philosophy of AI and NLP evaluation.

Greybox XAI for Diachronic Sentiment Analysis (Chun and Elkins, International Journal of Digital Humanities 5.2, 2023)

• Cugurullo and Xu (Policy and Society 44.1, 2024) — cited as the theoretical authority on LLMs' obscure epistemological process, cross-disciplinary travel into political theory of urban governance.

In Search of a Translator: A Computational Investigation of Proust's Du côté de chez Swann (Elkins, Frontiers in Computer Science 6, 2024)

• Huang and Cheung (Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Nature portfolio, 2026).

AI, authorship, and the university

AI Comes for the Author (Elkins, Poetics Today 45.2, 2024)

• James Phelan (Poetics Today 45.2, 2024) — engaged as part of an “instructive debate.”

A(I) University in Ruins: What Remains in a World with Large Language Models? (Elkins, PMLA 139.3, May 2024)

• Cao et al. (arXiv 2025) — anchor a central theoretical claim on the article: “An ‘objective' model, according to Katherine Elkins, cannot exist.”

Literary scholarship: memory, perception, interpretation, lyric

Stalled Flight: Horatian Remains in Baudelaire's Le Cygne (Elkins, Comparative Literature Studies 39.1, 2002; A. Owen Aldridge Prize)

• Sonam Singh (Comparative Literature 64.4, 2012) — cites the article on Horace 2.20 as model for Le Cygne.
• Marko Marinčič (Acta Neophilologica 42, 2009) — same.

Middling Memories and Dreams of Oblivion: Configurations of a Non-Archival Memory in Baudelaire and Proust (Elkins, Discourse 24.3, 2002)

• Alison Luyten (Manuscrítica 28, 2015) — adopts the non-archival memory framework; Antwerp / Dirk Van Hulle ecosystem.
• Taylor Johnston (Critique: Studies in Contemporary Fiction 59.3, 2018).

Naming the Lyric: Literature versus Philosophy in Plato's Symposium (Elkins, Philosophy and Literature 44.2, 2020)

• Rick Anthony Furtak, Kierkegaard, Socrates, and the Meaning of Life (Cambridge University Press, 2025).

Proust's In Search of Lost Time: Philosophical Perspectives (Elkins, editor; Oxford University Press, 2022)

• Tom Stern, “Proustian Grief” (European Journal of Philosophy 33.2, 2025) — extensively engaged across the article with citations to both the volume and individual chapters as a key reference for philosophical engagement with Proust.

This page is the detailed record of scholarly reception — verified citations, named citers, and how the work has been taken up. For an at-a-glance map of the work by topic, see Research.