Auditing the ‘Social’ of Quantum Technologies: A Scoping Review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various phrases such as “social implications”, social impact” and “ethical, legal and social implications” are used to indicate the impact of a given scientific or technological advancements on the ‘social’. The impact on the ‘social’ is one focus of science and technology governance discussions. Many terms and phrases can be used to audit the engagement of a given technology (such as quantum technologies) with the ‘social’. Marginalized groups are particularly impacted by the ‘social’. Equity, Diversity, and, Inclusion (EDI) and similar phrases are part of discussing the ‘social’. EDI frameworks and phrases are employed as policy concepts to decrease the research, education, and general workplace problems members of marginalized groups such as women, Indigenous peoples, visible/racialized minorities, disabled people, and LGBTQ2S+ encounter at universities and other workplaces. How quantum technologies-focused discussions engage with the ‘social’ can impact EDI activities, and quantum technologies-focused discussions can be impacted in turn by EDI activities. The objective of this study was to map the engagement with the ‘social’ in the quantum technologies-focused academic literature. A scoping review coupled with a manifest coding approach was used to answer three research questions: (1) Which terms, phrases, and measures that can be seen to cover aspects of the ‘social’ are present in the quantum technologies-focused academic literature? (2) To what extent are EDI frameworks and phrases present in the quantum technologies-focused academic literature? (3) Which marginalized groups visible in EDI discourses are covered in the quantum technologies-focused academic literature? Using the academic databases SCOPUS, EBSCO-HOST, Web of Science, Compendex, Inspec Archive, and Knovel, 362,728 English language abstracts were obtained for the manifest coding using 62 Quantum-related technical phrases and 1062 English language abstracts were obtained using 17 non-technical Quantum-related phrases. Within the 362,728 abstracts of the 200 terms and phrases (which did not have to contain the term “social”) used to answer the research questions, 87 were not mentioned in any abstracts, 47 were mentioned in less than 10, 30 were mentioned in between 10 and 100, and 29 were mentioned in over 100 abstracts. Within the 1062 abstracts, 164 terms and phrases were not mentioned at all, 19 were mentioned in over 10, 8 were mentioned in between 10 and 100 (all false positive), and one was mentioned in over 100 abstracts (false positive). The term “social” or phrases containing “social” appeared in only 867 of the 362,728 abstracts and only 10 of the 1062 abstracts. EDI frameworks and phrases were not present in the 362,728 abstracts and 1062 abstracts, and many marginalized groups engaged with in EDI discussions were not present in the 362,728 and 1062 abstracts either. The results reveal vast opportunities to engage with the ‘social’ of quantum technologies in many different ways, including through EDI frameworks and concepts and by engaging with marginalized groups covered under EDI.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it