Human Contribution Index
The HCI Framework
A rubric for measuring scholarly agency in research.
As AI-generated text becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish from human writing, a new question confronts universities, journals, and funding bodies: how much of this research reflects genuine human intellectual engagement?
Existing tools detect whether text was AI-generated. The HCI goes further — it measures the depth of human intellectual contribution behind the work, across five dimensions that capture the cognitive acts most characteristic of human researchers.
Each dimension is scored on a 1–5 scale using the anchor descriptors below. The composite HCI score is a weighted average of assessable dimensions, scaled to 0–100.
How the Score Works
HCI = Σ(λj × HCj) × 20
HCj = score for dimension j (1–5 scale)
λj = weight for dimension j (see below)
The HCI is a weighted average of assessable dimension scores, scaled to 0–100. The result is classified into one of three agency tiers.
Dimension Weights
| Dimension | Weight | What It Measures |
|---|---|---|
| Epistemic Agency | 35% | Did the researcher identify a meaningful gap, formulate original questions, and direct the inquiry? |
| Cognitive Transformation | 25% | Does the author’s thinking evolve? Is there triangulation of evidence and grappling with contradictions? |
| Methodological Autonomy | 20% | Did the researcher justify their design, critically evaluate alternatives, and discuss trade-offs? |
| Original Synthesis | 15% | Are there new conceptual models or cross-theory integrations that transcend the individual sources? |
| Metacognitive Oversight | 5% | Is there an honest, reflective account of limitations and the research learning journey? |
Scoring Rubric
Epistemic Agency(35%)
Identifying research gaps, formulating questions, directing inquiry
No original research gap identified; questions are generic or template-driven
Minor gap identification; questions closely follow existing work with little independence
Reasonable gap identification with some independent formulation of research questions
Clear articulation of a novel research gap with precise, insightful research questions
Exceptional identification of a critical juncture or overlooked gap; visionary question formulation that reframes the field
Cognitive Transformation(25%)
Evolving thinking, triangulating evidence, grappling with contradictions
No evidence of thinking evolving; findings accepted at face value without integration
Some engagement with multiple sources but no meaningful transformation of understanding
Reasonable triangulation of evidence with some grappling with conflicting findings
Strong evidence of thinking evolving through the work; multiple evidence sources integrated with nuance
Exceptional cognitive transformation visible throughout; the author’s understanding demonstrably deepens and shifts as they engage with evidence
Methodological Autonomy(20%)
Design justification, novel frameworks, critical methods discussion
No rationale for research design; methodology appears chosen by default or convenience
Basic rationale given but no critical evaluation of alternatives or limitations
Adequate justification with some awareness of methodological trade-offs
Well-justified methodology with critical discussion of strengths, weaknesses, and alternatives considered
Exceptional methodological autonomy; novel analytical tools or frameworks developed with rigorous justification for every design choice
Original Synthesis(15%)
New models, cross-theory integration, arguments greater than sum of parts
No synthesis; work is a collection of summaries with no integrative argument
Simple juxtaposition of ideas with no emergent insight from the combination
Some integration across sources but the synthesis is predictable and does not generate new understanding
Strong original synthesis creating new conceptual models or integrating theories from different fields in valuable ways
Masterful synthesis producing a holistic argument that is genuinely more than the sum of its parts; creates new conceptual territory
Metacognitive Oversight(5%)
Limitations awareness, process transparency, reflective learning
No discussion of limitations or reflection on the research process
Perfunctory limitations section with no genuine self-awareness
Adequate limitations discussion but lacking depth or honesty about the research journey
Thoughtful and honest discussion of limitations with transparent account of research decisions
Exceptional metacognitive awareness; candid reflective account of the learning journey with genuine intellectual humility
Interpreting Your Score
| HCI Score | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| 80–100 | High Agency — The human author is clearly the intellectual architect of the work. |
| 60–79 | Hybrid — A mix of human-led inquiry and significant reliance on AI for core intellectual tasks. |
| Below 60 | Low Agency — The work is likely a product of AI generation with minimal human intellectual contribution. |
See how your research scores.
Score a paper now →