MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903318110 · doi:10.4018/ijeach.2019010101

The Black Box Myth

2018· article· en· W2903318110 on OpenAlexaff
Abraham Rudnick

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Extreme Automation and Connectivity in Healthcare · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlack boxArgument (complex analysis)MythologyEpistemologyEmpirical researchData scienceComputer sciencePsychologyArtificial intelligencePhilosophyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence (AI) and its correlates, such as machine and deep learning, are changing health care, where complex matters such as comoribidity call for dynamic decision-making. Yet, some people argue for extreme caution, referring to AI and its correlates as a black box. This brief article uses philosophy and science to address the black box argument about knowledge as a myth, concluding that this argument is misleading as it ignores a fundamental tenet of science, i.e., that no empirical knowledge is certain, and that scientific facts – as well as methods – often change. Instead, control of the technology of AI and its correlates has to be addressed to mitigate such unexpected negative consequences.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Extreme Automation and Connectivity in HealthcareSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207