MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088980575 · doi:10.3138/tjt-2020-0031

Assessing Artificial Intelligence

2020· article· en· W3088980575 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Susan Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Journal of Theology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEthics and Social Impacts of AI
Canadian institutionsSinai Health System
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)Transcendental numberMoral agencyExploitSymbolic artificial intelligenceSense of agencyPsychologyAction (physics)Human intelligenceEmotional intelligenceDimension (graph theory)Artificial intelligenceSocial psychologyEpistemologyComputer scienceArtificial Intelligence SystemMathematicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A contribution to a panel on artificial intelligence at Trinity College on January 21, 2020, this essay assesses artificial intelligence in terms of moral agency, particularly the impact of the distance between the moral agency of the operator and the effect of the moral action; the separation between computational intelligence and an insufficient or missing emotional intelligence; the power differential it establishes between those who have the knowledge and skill to exploit AI and those who do not; and, finally, its utilitarian intent, which bypasses the spiritual and transcendental dimension of the human person.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.800
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.439
Teacher spread0.289 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToronto Journal of TheologySame topicEthics and Social Impacts of AIFrench-language works237,207