科学论文抽象中军事化语言激增，可能削弱可信度与支持度。
War in the Abstract: The Rise and Consequences of Militarized Language in Scientific Communication
- 分析2140万篇论文，发现军事术语使用量十年升48%至32%
- 实验显示军事化表述降低可信度、资助意愿和政策支持
- 社科领域最普遍，南半球国家增速最快，新冠与大模型时代加速蔓延
科学家本不参战，但其论文摘要中却频繁出现战争词汇。我们分析了2010至2025年间2140万篇论文（来自OpenAlex和PubMed），发现军事化语言在摘要中的使用率分别上升48%和32%，且自2019年后加速增长（跨数据库相关系数r=0.96，p<10⁻⁸）。该现象与全球冲突数据高度一致（Uppsala冲突数据项目，r=0.77–0.84），尤其在南半球国家上升最快。社会科学领域使用率最高，而工程与计算机科学领域增速最快。新冠及2022年后大语言模型时代进一步推动了语言趋同。此外，一项针对801名参与者的实验（32,040次试次）表明，采用战争框架会显著降低可信度（均值下降0.176李克特单位，95%置信区间[-0.21, -0.14]，d_z=-0.28，p<10⁻²⁰）、资助意愿（d_z=-0.12）和政策支持（d_z=-0.08），仅紧迫感略有提升（d_z=+0.07）。综合表明，科学写作中军事化语言的蔓延可能损害其公信力与社会支持。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Scientists do not, by profession, wage war. Yet warfare's vocabulary consistently appears in their abstracts. To quantify the extent to which warfare's vocabulary pervades scientific abstracts, we analyze 21.4 million papers (2010-2025; OpenAlex, PubMed). We additionally run a within-subject war-framing experiment ($N = 801$; 32{,}040 trials) designed to provide causal insight into the effects of militaristic language on persuasion. Between 2010 and 2025, the presence of militaristic terms in scientific abstracts rose 48\% in OpenAlex and 32\% in PubMed, with the rise accelerating sharply after 2019 (cross-database $r = 0.96$, $p < 10^{-8}$). The prevalence of militaristic language is conflict-aligned at both country and annual scales (Uppsala Conflict Data Program; $r = 0.77$-$0.84$), with the abstracts from the Global South displaying the fastest rise in militaristic language. Among disciplines, social sciences leads in level of such language while engineering and computer science lead in growth. The COVID and post-2022 large-language-model eras also accelerated the rise and narrowed the language gap between native-English-speaking and non-English-speaking countries. In our follow-up experiment, we found that war framing reduced credibility (mean shift $-0.176$ Likert units, 95\% CI $[-0.21, -0.14]$; $d_z = -0.28$, $p < 10^{-20}$), funding willingness ($d_z = -0.12$) and policy support ($d_z = -0.08$), with a trend-level increase in sense of urgency ($d_z = +0.07$). Collectively, findings reveal that while scientific abstracts drift toward warfare, the use of militaristic language may erode credibility, funding willingness, and policy support.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品；中文卡片由大模型生成，请以原文为准。