Blockchain Technology and Artificial Intelligence Together: A Critical Review on Applications
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
It is undeniable that the adoption of blockchain- and artificial intelligence (AI)-based paradigms is proceeding at lightning speed. Both paradigms provide something new to the market, but the degree of novelty and complexity of each is different. In the age of digital money, blockchains may automate installments to allow for the safe, decentralized exchange of personal data, information, and logs. AI and blockchains are two of the most talked about technologies right now. Using a decentralized, secure, and trustworthy system, blockchain technology can automate bitcoin payments and provide users access to a shared ledger of records, transactions, and data. Through the use of smart contracts, a blockchain may also regulate user interactions without the need for a central authority. As an alternative, AI provides robots with the ability to reason and make decisions and human-level intellect. This revelation led to a thorough assessment of the AI and blockchain combo created between 2012 and 2022. This critical review contains 121 articles from the recent decade that investigate the present situation and rationale of the AI and blockchain combination. The integration’s practical application is the emphasis of this overview’s meatiest portion. In addition, the gaps and problems of this combination in the linked literature have been studied, with a focus on the constraints.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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