Democratisation of Usable Machine Learning in Computer Vision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many industries are now investing heavily in data science and automation to replace manual tasks and/or to help with decision making, especially in the realm of leveraging computer vision to automate many monitoring, inspection, and surveillance tasks. This has resulted in the emergence of the 'data scientist' who is conversant in statistical thinking, machine learning (ML), computer vision, and computer programming. However, as ML becomes more accessible to the general public and more aspects of ML become automated, applications leveraging computer vision are increasingly being created by non-experts with less opportunity for regulatory oversight. This points to the overall need for more educated responsibility for these lay-users of usable ML tools in order to mitigate potentially unethical ramifications. In this paper, we undertake a SWOT analysis to study the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of building usable ML tools for mass adoption for important areas leveraging ML such as computer vision. The paper proposes a set of data science literacy criteria for educating and supporting lay-users in the responsible development and deployment of ML applications.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.061 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".