MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fairness and Regulation of Violence in Technological Design

2012· book-chapter· en· W4234696248 on OpenAlexaff
Cameron Shelley

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEthics and Social Impacts of AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Context (archaeology)Affect (linguistics)Computer scienceDesign elements and principlesManagement scienceEngineering ethicsEngineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Computer securitySociologyBusinessSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this article is to explore how the design of technology relates to the fairness of the distribution of violence in modern society. Deliberately or not, the design of technological artifacts embodies the priorities of its designers, including how violence is meted out to those affected by the design. Designers make implicit predictions about the context in which designs will perform, predictions that will not always be satisfied. Errors from failed predictions can affect people in ways that designers may not appreciate. In this article, several examples of how artifacts distribute violence are considered. The Taylor-Russell diagram is introduced as a means of representing and exploring this issue. The role of government regulation, safety, and social role in design assessment is discussed.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.042
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.265 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicEthics and Social Impacts of AIFrench-language works237,207