MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3176616498 · doi:10.29173/irie423

Tangible and Intangible Impact of AI Usage: AI for Information Accessibility

2021· article· en· W3176616498 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jandhyala Prabhakar Rao, Rambhatla Siva Prasad

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Information Ethics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEthics and Social Impacts of AI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntellectEquity (law)WelfareHuman welfareEthical issuesEnvironmental ethicsPolitical scienceSociologyBusinessEngineering ethicsEconomic growthPublic relationsEconomicsEngineeringLawEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Any technology opens enormous opportunities for individuals as well as societies. This undoubtedly will contribute to the welfare of the individuals and the growth of society. Since any technology is the creation of human intellect, it may also carry the issues of socio-cultural and environmental concerns, such as issues of acceptability, access, and equity. AI is no exception to this. This paper investigates some of the aspects related to the development and usage of AI, that includes accessibility relating to socio-cultural, economic, and ethical concerns. It argues for the need to evolve nation-specific policies and regulations addressing the issues of inequalities.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.011
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.416 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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