§0 · Demo
Five questions. Five fields. Two kinds of answer.
On the left of each scene: what a vanilla LLM (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini) typically returns. On the right: what LivingMeta returns from the live instance — with traceable citations, methodological detail, multi-perspective consensus, evidence-based gaps, and a Lab coach that scales with the user's role.
The vanilla-LLM responses are illustrative — they represent typical failure modes for this kind of question. Test them yourself. The LivingMeta responses are grounded in the live instances: real corpus sizes, real work IDs from the priority agenda, real authors and themes from the actual extractions. Click any instance link at the end of each scene to verify.
§1 · Menstrual Health at Work
What does the literature say workplace interventions for menstrual symptoms should look like?
Posed by an HR policy researcher building a case for a cycle-aware support scheme.
A vanilla LLM answer
Illustrative
There are several workplace interventions that have been studied for menstrual symptoms, including flexible working hours, menstrual leave policies (as seen in Spain, Japan, and Indonesia), on-site rest facilities, and manager training on menstrual health awareness.
A meta-analysis by Sims et al. (2023) found that flexible scheduling reduced absenteeism by approximately 18% across pooled studies.
Other recommended interventions include access to menstrual products in the workplace, educational programs for staff, and the development of formal disclosure-friendly policies. The evidence base is generally considered to be emerging but promising.
A LivingMeta-grounded answer
From menstrual-health-work
Over 3,400 papers in the broader field, with a focused cluster on workplace implementation. The agent synthesises across the cluster — it doesn't fake aggregation from outside the corpus, and it doesn't pretend papers exist that don't.
Foundational evidence anchored on specific papers: the landmark Dutch nationwide survey by Schoep et al. [W2954816350] — 32,748 women, FWCI 15.1, 268 citations — sets the productivity case the design needs.
Surfaces a multi-layered design model: flexibility + de-stigmatisation + infrastructure + clinical referral pathways as INTERDEPENDENT levers, not a checklist. Reflects what the corpus actually argues, not a generic HR template.
Open the thread to read the full ~15K-character synthesis with 90+ clickable paper references.
T4 · Evidence-based gaps + curated resources
Gap mapping and resource curation — both grounded in the corpus, not invented. The visitor leaves with a defensible "what we know vs what we still need to study" picture, with the instance's own priority agenda as the answer to "where should the field be working next?"
§2 · Innovation Management
What are the open research questions on AI integration in innovation ecosystems?
Posed by a PhD student scoping their dissertation in industrial-innovation research.
A vanilla LLM answer
Illustrative
AI integration in innovation ecosystems is an emerging field. Key research questions include how AI affects innovation processes, the role of platforms, ecosystem dynamics, and governance challenges. Recent work by Smith et al. (2024) has highlighted platform interoperability and vendor lock-in as critical factors.
Other authors have stressed the importance of absorptive capacity and dynamic capabilities (Teece et al., 2007) in determining whether organizations can integrate AI successfully. Top-management support also matters (Cooper & Zmud, 1990).
The open questions are generally considered to be around governance, ethics, and the long-term effects on innovation diversity. Researchers are still working out the right frameworks.
A LivingMeta-grounded answer
From innovation-management
The agent's synthesis draws on 20+ papers in the AI-integration cluster, from a ~2,000-paper IM corpus. Five distinct sub-clusters of open questions emerge — each treated separately with its own evidence base.
Frames the field as having shifted from "whether AI gets adopted" to "how adoption reshapes innovation logic" — a substantive theoretical observation, grounded in the recent literature, not a generic AI-hype frame.
Cites Ji & Tian (2026) [W7133900944] in Sustainability for the Dynamic Capability problem: AI capabilities alone don't produce innovation outcomes. Specific paper, specific journal, specific argument.
Open the thread to read the full ~13K-character synthesis across all five clusters, with 49 clickable paper references.
T2 · Methodological rigor + honest aggregation
Per-paper methodological rigor and honest aggregation. The platform surfaces what the corpus actually says — counts, clusters, priorities — and does not fake meta-analytic outputs the underlying extractions do not support. Reproducibility is by construction: every claim is downloadable JSON.
§3 · Sports Analytics
How robust is the "acute:chronic workload ratio predicts injury" finding?
Posed by a sport-science researcher writing a coach-facing review chapter on training-load monitoring.
A vanilla LLM answer
Illustrative
Hulin et al.'s 2015 work on the acute:chronic workload ratio is widely cited and has become a standard reference in training-load monitoring. The general consensus is that a ratio above 1.5 indicates elevated injury risk in athletes.
Subsequent meta-analyses have largely confirmed the predictive validity of the ACWR, though some authors have raised concerns about measurement error and the choice of moving-average windows. Overall, the framework is considered well-validated for training prescription.
A LivingMeta-grounded answer
From sports-analytics
Drawing on 22+ papers, the agent makes a sharp distinction: the ACWR-injury association is real and replicable, but the predictive capacity for individual injury is weak. These are different claims, and the literature has often conflated them — for a coach-facing review, the distinction IS the story.
Anchored on Hulin et al. 2015 [W1859218480] (FWCI 38.2, 460 citations): 53 elite rugby league players, 8,177 GPS files, binary logistic regression. Real methodology, real sample size, full statistical specification.
The follow-up question in the modal asks for the meta-analyst persona's replication specs. The agent zooms in: minimum N, multi-club design, measurement-window standardisation, pre-registration of analytical choices.
Open the thread to read the full ACWR-evidence synthesis + the meta-analyst replication-design follow-up. ~14K + ~16K characters, 49 clickable paper references.
T3 · Synthesis + 6-perspective consensus
Six independent AI perspectives, same paper, same fields, different cognitive emphasis — and a consensus mechanism that shows where they agreed and what each one added on top. Not a black-box summary: a triangulated, queryable extraction with the source quotes attached.
§4 · Lokaal Bestuur
Welke theorieën verklaren bestuurlijke ontkoppeling tussen formeel beleid en feitelijke praktijk in Nederlandse gemeenten?
Question in the instance's research language. Posed by a bestuurskundige onderzoeker working on Dutch municipal implementation gaps.
A vanilla LLM answer
Illustrative
Dutch public administration shows gaps between policy and practice, often called implementation problems. This is a known challenge in governance — organisations sometimes adopt policies for legitimacy without following through. Studies suggest better monitoring and clearer communication tend to help.
Researchers have proposed various frameworks for this, including organisational learning, principal-agent theory, and policy implementation models (Pressman & Wildavsky, 1973). Recent work by Van Dijk et al. (2022) emphasises the role of street-level bureaucrats.
A LivingMeta-grounded answer
From lokaal-bestuur
De agent identificeert vijf dominante theoretische tradities — neo-institutionalisme, principal-agent, sensemaking, padafhankelijkheid, bestuurskundige fragmentatie — en behandelt elk vanuit zijn eigen mechanistische logica. Geen enkele theorie is afdoende op zichzelf.
Anker: DiMaggio & Powell's institutionele isomorfie [W3123282572] verklaart ontkoppeling als legitimiteitsmanagement via coercitief, mimetisch en normatief isomorfisme. Concrete theorie, concrete paper, concrete mechanismen.
De follow-up vraag in de modal: "welke Nederlandse gemeenten hebben hier evaluaties over gepubliceerd?" De agent combineert literatuur + WooZM raadsstukken + OpenBestuur — BYOD cross-corpus in actie, ondersteund door de live data-corpora (4,7M raadsdocumenten, 6,84M WooZM agenda-items, 614K CBS regels).
Open de thread voor de volledige Nederlandse synthese + de cross-corpus gemeente-follow-up. ~12K + ~14K karakters, 46 klikbare paper-referenties.
T1 · Traceable citations + BYOD cross-corpus reasoning
Traceability isn't only about academic citations — it's about every layer of the answer being clickable. Lokaal Bestuur shows the BYOD pattern: your own domain corpus sits alongside the literature, with the same citation discipline. Theory from the literature, evidence from the records, financial reality from the statistics — all in one queryable instance.
§5 · Emergent Organizational Change
How do organisational change recipients construct and reconstruct their roles?
Posed by a change-management consultant who supervises four masters' theses on emergent change in public organisations.
A vanilla LLM answer
Illustrative
Change recipients can adopt various roles — supporters, resisters, ambivalent observers — depending on their interpretation of the change. Key factors include perceived fairness, communication quality, and psychological safety. Bernerth et al. (2011) discuss change cynicism as a related construct.
Strategies to support positive role construction include involving employees in decision-making, providing clear communication, and offering training. Leadership style also matters — transformational leaders tend to elicit more positive responses.
A LivingMeta-grounded answer
From emergent-organizational-change
Across 30+ directly applicable papers on sensemaking, identity work, and role construction, the agent rejects the binary "ready vs resistant" framing prevalent in practitioner change literature. Substantive critique, not a summary.
Anchored on Van der Schaft et al. [W4401037182] 2024: a narrative study of 80 recipients in a top-down change initiative yields five composite narratives of role-taking under change. Real empirical anchor with sample + method visible.
The same question, asked by Junior / Senior / Coach, yields three different responses. The Lab agent reads the user-role and adapts: Socratic scaffolding for the junior, peer-level density for the senior, course-design framing for the coach. Same evidence base, three modes of usefulness.
Open the modal and toggle through the three role variants. Each is the agent's full response from a separate live thread on emergent-organizational-change.
T5 · Lab coach with role toggle
The Lab coach scales with the user. A junior gets Socratic scaffolding pointing at three real corpus operationalisations; a senior gets peer-level density with the actual lineage; a supervisor gets a single-case scaffold and exemplar theses they can hand to students. Same evidence base, three different ways of being useful.
§6 · Your field
Don't see your field?
Five live instances is not a hundred. If your field is not above — criminology, medical biology, French literature, computational linguistics, anything — the same workflow runs identically. Tell us what your literature looks like.