MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200108713 · doi:10.17899/on_ed.2021.12.1

Synthetic Governance: On the Impossibility of Taming Artificial Intelligence in Education

2021· article· en· W4200108713 on OpenAlexaff
Kalervo Ν. Gulson, Sam Sellar, P. Taylor Webb

Bibliographic record

VenueOn Education Journal for Research and Debate · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEthics and Social Impacts of AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of Minnesota
KeywordsImpossibilityCorporate governancePoliticsPolitical scienceArtificial intelligenceLaw and economicsEngineering ethicsSociologyEpistemologyComputer scienceLawEngineeringManagementEconomicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper claims it is impossible to tame Artificial Intelligence in education. The paper is not advocating that AI should be used in an unfettered way in education. Rather, the paper suggests that despite ongoing policy attempts to regulate AI, these policy moves are unlikely to succeed due to a synthesis of machines and humans in education governance. The paper briefly outlines attempts to tame AI, and proposes that rather than considering taming AI, a new politics of education may be necessary.

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)0.057
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.106
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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0570.106
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.045
Scholarly communication0.0090.017
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.198
GPT teacher head0.529
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOn Education Journal for Research and DebateSame topicEthics and Social Impacts of AIFrench-language works237,207