MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3038680878 · doi:10.29173/irie383

In A Different Code: Artificial Intelligence and The Ethics of Care

2020· article· en· W3038680878 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Cohn

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Information Ethics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEthics and Social Impacts of AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)AccountabilityIntersection (aeronautics)Engineering ethicsPolitical scienceEthics of technologyApplications of artificial intelligenceSociologyComputer scienceInformation ethicsArtificial intelligenceLawEngineeringMeta-ethics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The following essay explores the intersection of care with ethical reflections on artificial intelligence (AI). The current debate around AI ethics focuses on questions of moral AI judgment and the general criteria for maximizing the fairness, accountability, and transparency of these judgments. While this discussion is important, it all too often obfuscates the actual purpose and intention behind the use of the algorithmic or AI technology. Where the rationale for developing these technologies focuses on increasing optimization and innovation, concern must be shifted to ensure that AI will be used primarily to address current inequities and harms, from exacerbating climate change to manipulating voters via social media to creating “better” weapons.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.030
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.294 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Review of Information EthicsSame topicEthics and Social Impacts of AIFrench-language works237,207