MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200296112 · doi:10.1109/mcg.2021.3107875

The Role of Interactive Visualization in Fostering Trust in AI

2021· article· en· W4200296112 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Computer Graphics and Applications · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsVisualizationComputer scienceInterpretabilityRelevance (law)Agency (philosophy)Human–computer interactionAccountabilityTrustworthinessData visualizationData scienceArtificial intelligenceInternet privacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies across application domains has prompted our society to pay closer attention to AI's trustworthiness, fairness, interpretability, and accountability. In order to foster trust in AI, it is important to consider the potential of interactive visualization, and how such visualizations help build trust in AI systems. This manifesto discusses the relevance of interactive visualizations and makes the following four claims: i) trust is not a technical problem, ii) trust is dynamic, iii) visualization cannot address all aspects of trust, and iv) visualization is crucial for human agency in AI.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.276 · 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