Paper Radar screens research titles and abstracts against a reader’s interests. It asks Jev separate typed questions, then uses ordinary code to rank results and build a reading queue. A Claude backend uses the same workflow with self-reported probabilities.
From interests to decisions
- Each interest and exclusion becomes a separate yes/no probability question. Optional questions classify paper type, code availability and reported evidence.
- The code combines weighted interest scores, checks exclusions and assigns must-read, maybe or skip bands using configured thresholds. Individual answers, model identity and estimated costs can be retained for review.
- The project also provides a systematic-review screening mode. Its authors recommend human review rather than automatic replacement of a screener.
What the tests actually show
- The author reports that Jev recovered 96.9% of included studies across four previously untouched Cochrane review topics while saving 78% of screening work in a retrospective benchmark. The thresholds were fitted on the same judgments scored, making the result optimistic for a new review. I did not reproduce it.
- In a separate Claude trial, the author reports 49 judged papers, six positives and one failed response from a 50-paper batch. Labels came from an assistant reading titles and trimmed abstracts, not from the user or an expert panel. The reported thresholds are an exploratory fit to that same small batch, not evidence of general calibration.
- Jev’s calibration claims also need testing on the reader’s own labels. A typed probability has a valid shape without necessarily being an accurate decision.
I inspected the question builder, provider call and scoring code at revision 334d4c1152e2d3d1d1cf0a9f7f3a77d64885fa18; I did not run the project, reproduce its metrics or perform a security audit. Caveat: abstracts can omit decisive details, and a missed paper may never reach the reader.