urn:uuid:0c0b6edc-2487-56a9-88e3-83b207279e02 SocioLens — RO-LD07-09: Do LLM judges inflate the quality of AI-written deliberation? New versions of this research opportunity and changes to the claims it rests on. 2026-10-13T00:00:00Z SocioLens urn:uuid:a5b0bd43-fffb-5a5d-ab97-553797f7f61d Research opportunity revised to v2: RO-LD07-09 — Do LLM judges inflate the quality of AI-written deliberation? 2026-10-13T00:00:00Z Literature check added: a second, deeper search for existing work, with its queries, new nearest work and limits. The question and verdict stand. urn:uuid:c5981250-187b-5577-a273-62b6bcfa6c2b New research opportunity: RO-LD07-09 — Do LLM judges inflate the quality of AI-written deliberation? 2026-10-12T00:00:00Z On a corpus mixing human-written and LLM-written deliberative contributions, do LLM judges assign higher construct scores (for example on the Discourse Quality Index or argument quality) to LLM-authored text than expert coders blind to authorship, and is the gap larger when the judge model also wrote the text?