MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309616863 · doi:10.1145/3555163

AI and Disaster Risk: A Practitioner Perspective

2022· article· en· W4309616863 on OpenAlexaff
Aparna Moitra, Dennis Wagenaar, Manveer Kalirai, Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed, Robert Soden

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEthics and Social Impacts of AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Domain (mathematical analysis)Emerging technologiesRisk analysis (engineering)Data scienceEngineering ethicsComputer scienceKnowledge managementManagement scienceBusinessEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emerging techniques developed by AI researchers promise to offer the capacity to support disaster risk management (DRM), through making data collection or analysis practices faster, less costly, or more accurate. However, in every socially consequential domain in which AI tools have been applied, these technologies have been demonstrated to have some degree of negative consequences. This paper explores an attempt to convene technical experts in the area of DRM to discuss potential negative impacts, their approaches toward mitigating these impacts as well as identifying some of the overarching challenges. In doing so, we contribute new findings about a domain that has received relatively little attention from critical and ethical AI researchers, and the opportunities and limitations that are presented by working with domain experts to evaluate the social consequences of emerging technologies.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer InteractionSame topicEthics and Social Impacts of AIFrench-language works237,207