<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Corpus on Valency Blog</title><link>https://blog.valency.io/tags/corpus/</link><description>Recent content in Corpus on Valency Blog</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 May 2026 15:22:51 -0700</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://blog.valency.io/tags/corpus/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Hallucinations as a new(ish) threat model for academics</title><link>https://blog.valency.io/posts/hallucinations-academic-threat/</link><pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://blog.valency.io/posts/hallucinations-academic-threat/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;As academics, our central remit in writing papers has always been to cite the work that came before ours, to give context to our findings, to acknowledge prior art, and to engage deeply with the knowledge corpus. &lt;strong&gt;Omission&lt;/strong&gt; of relevant citations has many origins, from the benign, to the lazy, to the pernicious. Most academics know of some people in their field who systematically under cite and for those people, it’s not a good look. The norms of academia (feedback on public preprints, peer review, accountability during promotion, etc.) are supposed to correct for the under-citation problem. But it’s always been an imperfect system and we’ve gotten used to it.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>