MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3106504752 · doi:10.22215/cpopp.v6i0.2723

Leading the Way: How the Canadian Government can Continue to Foster the Development of a Robust and Ethical Artificial Intelligence Industry

2020· article· en· W3106504752 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ian Crump

Bibliographic record

VenueCarleton Perspectives on Public Policy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEthics and Social Impacts of AI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Industrial RevolutionPolitical scienceEmerging technologiesBusinessEconomic growthEconomicsLawArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The emerging artificial intelligence (AI) industry presents an enormous economic opportunity for Canada. However, many ethical questions remain unresolved about the application of these technologies and their social impacts. Despite these challenges, AI will continue to be developed and Canada cannot risk missing out on the benefits of the fourth industrial revolution. This article argues that Canada must continue to build upon its strong policies for the sector to foster the development of ethical domestic AI enterprises and offers several recommendations for policymakers.

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)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCarleton Perspectives on Public PolicySame topicEthics and Social Impacts of AIFrench-language works237,207