MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200919880

Reviewing algorithmic decision making in administrative law

2021· article· en· W3200919880 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Michael Lang

Bibliographic record

VenueLex Electronica · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Law
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophyChemistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’intelligence artificielle est peut-etre le changement technologique le plus important depuis la popularisation de l’Internet dans les annees de declin du XXe siecle. L’intelligence artificielle promet d'affecter la plupart des secteurs de l'economie moderne, du camionnage et du transport aux soins medicaux et a la recherche. Notre systeme juridique a deja commence a envisager comment des systemes de prise de decision artificiellement intelligents sont susceptibles d'affecter l’equite des procedures et l'acces a la justice. Ces effets ont ete sous-evalues dans le domaine du droit administratif, dans lequel des systemes artificiellement intelligents pourraient etre utilises pour accelerer la prise de decision, assurer un traitement relativement egal de cas similaires et lutter contre la discrimination. Mais l’adoption de systemes artificiellement intelligents par les decideurs administratifs souleve egalement de graves questions. Cet essai se concentre sur une de ces questions : les decisions administratives prises par des systemes artificiellement intelligents sont-elles capables de repondre au devoir d'equite procedurale du aux sujets de ces decisions ? L’essai est divise en trois parties. Dans la premiere, j’expose brievement l’utilisation croissante des systemes artificiellement intelligents dans le contexte administratif. Nous etudierons principalement les algorithmes d'apprentissage machine en decrivant le defi technique d’inexplicabilite qu’ils posent. Dans la deuxieme section, j’expose le devoir des decideurs administratifs d'expliquer leur raisonnement dans certains contextes. Dans la troisieme section, je soutiens que les processus administratifs qui utilisent des systemes artificiellement intelligents compliqueront l’accomplissement efficace de cette tâche. Les personnes soumises a certains types de decisions administratives peuvent etre privees des motifs auxquels elles ont droit. Je soutiens que l’intelligence artificielle pourrait nous amener a repenser la justification des decisions en droit administratif.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.013
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLex ElectronicaSame topicArtificial Intelligence in LawFrench-language works237,207