Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificially Intelligent (AI) systems are pervasive, but poorly understood by their users and, at times, developers. It is often unclear how and why certain algorithms make choices, predictions, or conclusions. What does AI transparency mean? What explanations do AI system users desire? This panel discusses AI opaqueness with examples in applied context such as natural language processing, people categorization, judicial decision explanations, and system recommendations. We offer insights from interviews with AI system users about their perceptions and developers’ lessons learned. What steps should be taken towards AI transparency and accountability for its decisions? Les systèmes artificiellement intelligents (IA) sont omniprésents, mais mal compris par leurs utilisateurs et, parfois, par les développeurs. On ne sait souvent pas comment et pourquoi certains algorithmes font des choix, des prédictions ou des conclusions. Que signifie la transparence de l'IA? Quelles explications les utilisateurs du système d'IA souhaitent-ils? Ce panel examine l'opacité de l'IA avec des exemples dans un contexte appliqué tels que le traitement du langage naturel, la catégorisation des personnes, les explications des décisions judiciaires et les recommandations système. Nous proposons des informations issues d'entretiens avec des utilisateurs de systèmes d'IA sur leurs perceptions et les leçons apprises par les développeurs. Quelles mesures devraient être prises pour assurer la transparence et la responsabilité de l'IA pour ses décisions?
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 | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".