Artificial Intelligence and Ethical Dimensions of Automated Traffic Enforcement: Implications for Public Health, Healthcare Equity, and Social Justice
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This study provides a critical examination of AI-integrated speed and red-light camera systems through the theoretical lenses of Surveillance Capitalism, the Panopticon Model, Social Control Theory, Technological Determinism, and Structural Violence Theory. While artificial intelligent speed safety cameras demonstrate efficacy in reducing traffic violations and fatalities, this research addresses a critical gap in healthcare literature regarding their broader societal and ethical consequences, including algorithmic bias, data governance failures, and privacy violations that directly impact public trust and health equity. The analysis reveals how machine learning and predictive analytics in automated enforcement create disproportionate burdens on marginalized populations through three specific mechanisms: (1) biased algorithmic design that targets low-income neighborhoods more intensively, (2) punitive traffic fine structures that impose greater relative financial hardship on economically disadvantaged families, and (3) opaque implementation practices that limit community understanding and participation. These patterns perpetuate health disparities by increasing chronic stress, economic instability, and barriers to healthcare access among vulnerable populations. This work’s novel contribution lies in applying four foundational health equity principles to AI-powered traffic enforcement: distributive justice (fair allocation of enforcement across communities), procedural justice (transparent and accountable decision-making processes), recognition justice (acknowledgment of community voices and concerns), and capabilities approach (ensuring enforcement practices do not undermine individuals’ fundamental capabilities for health and wellbeing). Additionally, the study examines three core social justice principles: substantive equality (addressing systemic disadvantages rather than treating all violations identically), participatory parity (ensuring affected communities can participate meaningfully in policy decisions), and non-domination (preventing the arbitrary exercise of state power through automated systems). The study advocates for the development of ethical artificial intelligence governance frameworks that incorporate transparent algorithmic auditing, community driven design processes, and robust oversight mechanisms. These evidence-based recommendations support equitable and trustworthy applications of artificial intelligence that advocate for, rather than undermine, population health and social justice in traffic safety initiatives. A novel contribution of this work lies in its exploration of how artificial intelligence powered speed safety cameras intersect with specific health equity principles in distributive justice, procedural justice, and the capabilities approach, as well as core social justice principles, including substantive equality, participatory parity, and nondomination, in the governance of public infrastructure. The analysis applies distributive justice to examine the fair allocation of enforcement across communities, procedural justice to evaluate transparent decision-making processes, and the capabilities approach to assess whether enforcement practices undermine individuals’ fundamental capabilities for health and wellbeing.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».