MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293318096 · doi:10.29173/irie482

Forgotten African AI Narratives and the future of AI in Africa

2022· article· en· W4293318096 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Information Ethics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLaw, AI, and Intellectual Property
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeHistoryLiteratureArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ancient and contemporary imaginative thoughts, stories, literary works, and beliefs about intelligent machines or otherwise known as AI narratives influence the development, implementation and governance of AI. Responsible AI therefore requires the understanding of these narratives. However, in the global AI narratives discourse, narratives of AI from Africa are missing or are often forgotten. Potentially, this has implications for how AI is or will be designed, deployed and regulated in Africa. This paper presents insights into our understanding of the reasons why Africa’s AI narratives are often missing, the implications this has for the future of AI in Africa, how the situation can be improved and the path to take to achieve responsible AI in Africa. These insights emerged following a workshop organized at Mozilla Festival 2021 and demonstrates the growing need to explore uncovered AI narratives in Africa to ensure better AI outcomes.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.287
Teacher spread0.261 · 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