MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056081593 · doi:10.4018/jte.2011100102

Fairness and Regulation of Violence in Technological Design

2011· article· en· W2056081593 on OpenAlexaff
Cameron Shelley

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Technoethics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEthics and Social Impacts of AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Government (linguistics)Affect (linguistics)Computer scienceDesign elements and principlesEngineering ethicsComputer securityRisk analysis (engineering)SociologyBusinessEngineeringSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this article is to explore how the design of technology relates to the fairness of the distribution of violence in modern society. Deliberately or not, the design of technological artifacts embodies the priorities of its designers, including how violence is meted out to those affected by the design. Designers make implicit predictions about the context in which designs will perform, predictions that will not always be satisfied. Errors from failed predictions can affect people in ways that designers may not appreciate. In this article, several examples of how artifacts distribute violence are considered. The Taylor-Russell diagram is introduced as a means of representing and exploring this issue. The role of government regulation, safety, and social role in design assessment is discussed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.140
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of TechnoethicsSame topicEthics and Social Impacts of AIFrench-language works237,207