MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323354418 · doi:10.1145/3564623

OER for Ethics and Computing Open Access Collection

2023· book· en· W4323354418 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM eBooks · 2023
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEthics and Social Impacts of AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSyllabusComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Process (computing)Task (project management)Set (abstract data type)Engineering ethicsData scienceWorld Wide WebMathematics educationEngineeringPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coverage of ethics and computing is proliferating at universities, at both undergraduate and graduate levels. This includes standalone courses, and incorporation of ethics into technical computer science and related courses. Most of these courses, particularly the standalone ones, make extensive use of recent media articles, papers, videos, and other resources about issues related to ethics and computing. Thousands of such media articles alone are published annually. There is enormous duplication of effort by people who are teaching these courses, as discovering these resources is not always an easy process. The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Task Force on Ethics and Computing Education has developed an initial categorized open access collection of the titles and links to articles and other resources related to ethics and computing. Each reference in the collection is categorized by the most relevant technical topic. The collection will be updated regularly using a mechanism whereby people can submit suggestions that will be vetted by individuals knowledgeable in the field. It will be publicized so that educators teaching ethics in computing courses and units will be aware of this collection and how to access it. Educators who find novel ways to use the repository also will be encouraged to submit their experiences to EngageCSEdu. This work is informed by [1], which describes a crowdsourced spreadsheet of tech ethics courses and syllabi, as well as a subsequent analysis of what is taught in these courses [2]. Our aim is to provide a sustainable, evolving set of resources for such courses within the context of EngageCSEdu. In addition, just before the final submission of this paper we became aware of Computing Ethics Narratives [3], an excellent and related collection of resources produced as part of a project funded by the Mozilla Responsible Computer Science Challenge. We are cooperating with the creators of this resource moving forward.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaOpen science
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.451
GPT teacher head0.555
Teacher spread0.104 · 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