Human Contribution Index
The HCI Framework
A rubric for measuring genuine human thinking 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 all dimensions, adjusted for AI dependency.
How the Score Works
HCI = Σ(λj × HCj) × (1 − AId)
HCj = score for dimension j (1–5 scale)
λj = weight for dimension j (see below)
AId = AI dependency factor (0.0–1.0), reflecting the extent of AI involvement in the research process
The AI dependency factor acts as a multiplier: work produced entirely by a human (AId = 0) retains its full score, while heavy AI reliance reduces the composite proportionally.
Dimension Weights
| Dimension | Weight | What It Measures |
|---|---|---|
| Conceptual Direction | 25% | Did the researcher identify the problem, frame the questions, and direct the inquiry? |
| Creative Synthesis | 25% | Are the connections and insights non-obvious? Do they draw on cross-domain expertise? |
| Critical Judgment | 20% | Did the researcher evaluate alternatives, weigh evidence, and acknowledge limitations? |
| Ethical Reasoning | 15% | Did the researcher navigate ethical considerations and take responsibility for impact? |
| Scholarly Voice | 15% | Is there a distinctive intellectual perspective and authentic argumentation? |
Scoring Rubric
Conceptual Direction(25%)
Problem framing, research questions, intellectual agenda-setting
Derivative questions with no independent framing; follows an existing template
Minor variation on established questions; heavily guided by prior work
Reasonable questions with some independent thought and adequate rationale
Clear intellectual leadership with deep understanding and a coherent research vision
Exceptionally original framing that reveals gaps others have missed; visionary agenda-setting
Creative Synthesis(25%)
Cross-domain connections, emergent insights, novel integration
No synthesis across ideas or fields; relies on a single narrow framework
Simple, obvious connections with no new insights generated
Some cross-field connections, but these remain superficial and yield no emergent insights
Strong synthesis connecting different fields in ways that produce valuable new understanding
Masterful integration of disparate domains, generating emergent insights that no single perspective could produce
Critical Judgment(20%)
Metacognition, epistemic humility, engagement with alternatives
Claims accepted uncritically; no evaluation of competing positions or methodological trade-offs
Inconsistent critical engagement; alternatives acknowledged but not meaningfully examined
Reasonable analysis supported by evidence, but lacking depth or nuance
Rigorous evaluation with serious consideration of alternatives and transparent acknowledgment of limitations
Exceptional metacognitive awareness with sophisticated engagement across competing frameworks
Ethical Reasoning(15%)
Moral engagement, stakeholder consideration, responsibility
Ethical implications ignored entirely; no consideration beyond procedural compliance
Pro-forma ethics statement present but with no deeper engagement
Key ethical issues addressed adequately, though analysis does not extend beyond the obvious
Nuanced engagement with multiple stakeholders; ethical tensions identified and navigated
Proactive identification of non-obvious ethical considerations, treated with depth and intellectual seriousness
Scholarly Voice(15%)
Authorial presence, intellectual ownership, authentic perspective
Generic writing with no distinct authorial presence; could have been written by anyone — or by AI
Competent prose but lacking voice; no personal intellectual investment visible
An emerging voice with moments of distinctive perspective, though inconsistent across the work
A clear, confident voice that owns its arguments and engages the reader
An exceptional scholarly voice with powerful intellectual ownership — only this researcher could have written it
AI Dependency Factor
The AI dependency factor (AId) captures the extent of AI involvement in the research process. It ranges from 0.0 (no AI involvement) to 1.0 (entirely AI-generated).
| AId Range | Level | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| 0.0–0.2 | Minimal | Spell-check, formatting, grammar tools |
| 0.2–0.4 | Moderate | Literature search assistance, data cleaning, reference management |
| 0.4–0.6 | Substantial | AI-assisted drafting with significant human revision; AI-supported analysis with human interpretation |
| 0.6–0.8 | Heavy | AI-generated sections with minor editing; AI-driven analysis with minimal human oversight |
| 0.8–1.0 | Dominant | Predominantly AI-written with cosmetic human edits |
Interpreting Your Score
| HCI Score | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| 4.0–5.0 | Exceptional — Strong evidence of authentic human intellectual engagement across all dimensions |
| 3.0–4.0 | Strong — Clear evidence of genuine human intellectual contribution |
| 2.0–3.0 | Moderate — Some dimensions show authentic engagement; others raise questions |
| 1.0–2.0 | Limited — Significant concerns about the depth of human intellectual involvement |
| Below 1.0 | Minimal — Heavy AI dependency has substantially diminished the human contribution signal |
See how your research scores.
Score a paper now →