As LLM-generated content proliferates online, texts are increasingly subject to repeated processing and translation by models, making it critical to understand how such iterative reprocessing reshapes language. Prior work has shown that this degrades factual content and reduces diversity, but the fine-grained linguistic shifts underlying these effects remain unexplored. We track changes in epistemic markers, grammatical voice, degree adverbs, and nominalisation density across 12 iterations of round-trip translation applied to 600 BBC News articles, varying intermediate language, translation model, and chain topology across 17 experimental configurations. We find a consistent epistemic shift: evidential and factive markers increase while hedges decline, potentially causing tentative claims to read as more certain. Concurrently, texts undergo register-level formalisation—informal degree adverbs give way to formal alternatives, active-voice density drops, by-phrase passives attrite disproportionately, and nominalisation density rises. We also record clear model-specific patterns for certain settings. These shifts erode the markers of source, register, and agency, offering a fine-grained account of the factual degradation reported in previous studies.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly utilised for social simulation and persona generation, necessitating an understanding of how they represent geopolitical identities. In this paper, we analyse personas generated for Palestinian and Israeli identities by five popular LLMs across 640 experimental conditions, varying context (war vs non-war) and assigned roles. We observe significant distributional patterns in the generated attributes: Palestinian profiles in war contexts are frequently associated with lower socioeconomic status and survival-oriented roles, whereas Israeli profiles predominantly retain middle-class status and specialised professional attributes. When prompted with explicit instructions to avoid harmful assumptions, models exhibit diverse distributional changes, e.g., marked increases in non-binary gender inferences or a convergence toward generic occupational roles (e.g., "student"), while the underlying socioeconomic distinctions often remain. Furthermore, analysis of reasoning traces reveals an interesting dynamics between model reasoning and generation: while rationales consistently mention fairness-related concepts, the final generated personas follow the aforementioned diverse distributional changes. These findings illustrate a picture of how models interpret geopolitical contexts, while suggesting that they process fairness and adjust in varied ways; there is no consistent, direct translation of fairness concepts into representative outcomes.

In this study, we investigate how author affiliation shapes academic discourse, proposing it as an effective proxy for author perspective in understanding what topics are studied, how nations are framed, and whose realities are prioritised. Using Palestine as a case study, we apply BERTopic and Structural Topic Modelling (STM) to 29,536 English-language academic articles collected from the OpenAlex database. We find that domestic authors focus on practical, local issues like healthcare, education, and the environment, while foreign authors emphasise legal, historical, and geopolitical discussions. These differences, in our interpretation, reflect lived proximity to war and crisis. We also note that while BERTopic captures greater lexical nuance, STM enables covariate-aware comparisons, offering deeper insight into how affiliation correlates with thematic emphasis. We propose extending this framework to other underrepresented countries, including a future study focused on Gaza post-October 7.