Ethical Applications of Big Data-Driven AI on Social Systems: Literature Analysis and Example Deployment Use Case
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of technological solutions to address the production of goods and offering of services is ubiquitous. Health and social issues, however, have only slowly been permeated by technological solutions. Whilst several advances have been made in health in recent years, the adoption of technology to combat social problems has lagged behind. In this paper, we explore Big Data-driven Artificial Intelligence (AI) applied to social systems; i.e., social computing, the concept of artificial intelligence as an enabler of novel social solutions. Through a critical analysis of the literature, we elaborate on the social and human interaction aspects of technology that must be in place to achieve such enabling and address the limitations of the current state of the art in this regard. We review cultural, political, and other societal impacts of social computing, impact on vulnerable groups, and ethically-aligned design of social computing systems. We show that this is not merely an engineering problem, but rather the intersection of engineering with health sciences, social sciences, psychology, policy, and law. We then illustrate the concept of ethically-designed social computing with a use case of our ongoing research, where social computing is used to support safety and security in home-sharing settings, in an attempt to simultaneously combat youth homelessness and address loneliness in seniors, identifying the risks and potential rewards of such a social computing application.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".