MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210408749 · doi:10.46713/jdst.004.01

Military Dataset Processing Approaches or Trauma Risk Mitigation in Machine Learning Practitioners

2022· article· en· W4210408749 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

VenueJournal of Defence & Security Technologies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOffensiveComputer sciencePreprocessorArtificial intelligenceMachine learningWork (physics)Motion (physics)Data scienceEngineeringOperations research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To develop new computer vision capabilities leveraging artificial intelligence, we will increasingly need to use operationally realistic training and validation datasets. Although operational full motion video and imagery datasets present information regarding their provenance and classification level, these designations are often not indicative of the presence of potentially offensive or traumatizing content. As machine learning and data scientists increasingly need to work with operational unsanitized operational video and imagery data, they will have a higher risk of being exposed to sensitive and traumatic content. In this paper, we first raise awareness about this risk within the Defense community. Then, we propose several approaches for mitigating machine learning practitioner's exposure to offensive and traumatizing media, including dataset preprocessing procedures and viewing tool design considerations.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.363
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.240 · 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