I agree that something like that needs to be done. I did something similar myself for EA forum posts, but apparently people didn't like it because it didn't get any upvotes here (I don't know why).
My main question/feedback is: "EA Forum paper links" - what exactly is that? Are these EA posts that link to a paper? If so, then why not include all posts, why only papers?
"EA Forum paper links" is meant to find research papers/projects that were mentioned on the EA Forum. This tool is mainly meant for surfacing in-depth research that uses formal methods and is putting itself out there as being up to the highest methodological rigor. I mainly meant this tool as a source of research for The Unjournal to consider and evaluate.
(Of course some EA forum posts are also themselves research objects, and occasionally they are even sometimes rather detailed and technical.)
I'm not sure what your tool was doing but it does sound potentially interesting.
We've been experimenting with using LLMs to help identify and prioritize research for Unjournal evaluation, to work with and complement human prioritization (and learn). We now have a public prototype dashboard. It's early stage and needs refinement we have not invested a lot of compute/API credit into this.
What it does: Automatically discovers recent papers from NBER, arXiv (econ), CEPR, SSRN, Semantic Scholar, EA Forum paper links, OpenAlex, Anthropic Research and then using AI models (mostly GPT-5.4 family) against our prioritization criteria— decision relevance, prominence, timing value, and methodological potential.
Domain: economics, quantitative social science, forecasting, and policy-relevant research
Caveats: This is very preliminary and the AI recommendations are not yet well-calibrated. As of 14 Apr 2026 many of the suggestions are mediocre we're sharing it for transparency and feedback. This supplements our existing Public Database of Prioritized Research on Coda (and those papers have been folded in here too. )
Scores reflect evaluation priority (expected value of commissioning an independent review), not research quality. ATM (IIRC) the AI only sees paper metadata and abstracts, not full texts. There's also a statistics page showing the breakdown by source, cause area, and score distribution.
Probably building towards a hybrid/centaur model here, with human and AI prioritization feedback reinforcing each other. (And see "planned workflow" at the bottom.)
Feedback encouraged. You can also comment directly on the page via Hypothes.is, and we'll adapt.
We've continued to update this. Some recent changes and additions (caveat: comment below is AI-generated, human-vouched, "DR" is a human addition)
Some of the main improvements:
Better scoring and clearer interpretations. Papers now receive a standard scoring pass, with deeper analysis for higher-potential candidates. You can switch between:
There are also configurable weights for people who disagree with ours.
--/-/~/+/++judgments and a fuller rating/comment form. The weighting is deliberately visible and described as ad hoc rather than presented as more principled than it is.The core caveat remains: these scores concern the potential value of further attention or evaluation. They aren’t grades of research quality, endorsements, or completed Unjournal decisions.
Some useful ways to help:
Tell us which decisions, funding questions, or research agendas this tool should be helping with. That’s probably more valuable than feedback on the interface alone.
DR: If you think you could add value here but want something in return, let me know what I/we can do to make it attractive to you