Steering the mind share: technology companies, policy and Artificial Intelligence research in universities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on Artificial Intelligence, especially in the field of machine learning, has exploded in the twenty-first century. AI research in universities has long been funded by a combination of government and corporate sources. The funding of AI research in the contemporary university includes technology companies as both funders and generators of research areas. This paper looks at the links between technology companies and AI research in three areas: first, the ways in which technology companies influence both the content and practices of AI research in universities; second, how university research policies enable conditions that blur traditional boundaries between corporate and academic AI research; and third, how an ethos of ‘open science’, that is increasingly corporatised, moves ideas about AI from universities to companies. We conclude that technology companies influence AI research within established feedback loops in the transformed relationships between economy, society, research, and the contemporary university.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.043 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".