5 papers covering hallucination rates across legal, medical and scientific contexts plus systematic-review screening. Most other Week 5 references are tool documentation rather than primary papers.
All PDFs link to raw.githubusercontent.com; clicking will download the file directly. Source links go to the canonical version on arXiv, the journal, or the publisher.
5.1 · The AI Literature Review Landscape
Assessing the Ability of ChatGPT to Screen Articles for Systematic Reviews
5.2 · Free Tools Deep Dive
Covers Semantic Scholar, ResearchRabbit, Connected Papers, NotebookLM, Google Scholar — tools, not papers.
5.3 · Paid Tools and When They Are Worth It
Covers Elicit, Consensus, Scite.ai, SciSpace, Litmaps Premium — tools, not papers.
5.4 · The Hallucinated Citation Crisis
Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Tools
Hallucination Rates and Reference Accuracy of ChatGPT and Bard for Systematic Reviews
Hallucinations in AI-Generated References for Mental Health Literature Reviews
Hallucinations in Bibliographic Recommendation: Citation Frequency as a Proxy for Training Data Redundancy
5.5 · Building Your Research Workflow with Claude
Original workflow content.
5.6 · Hands-On Activities and Assessment
Assessment design.