MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligen

2022· article· en· W4328028940 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tawei Wang Tawei Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Computer Auditing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditBig dataPolitical scienceEnvironmental ethicsArtificial intelligencePsychologyManagementComputer sciencePhilosophyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Artificial intelligence (AI) has once again attracted the public’s attention in the past decade. Riding on the wave of big data revolution, the development of AI is much more promising than that 50 years ago. One example is ChatGPT (https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt/), which has quickly become a hot topic in the past several months and has brought back all kinds of discussion about AI and decision making. In this editorial, I would like to highlight several perspectives that may help us rethink about the implications of using AI for decision making especially for audit professionals.</p> <p> </p>

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.017
Scholarly communication0.0180.015
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0100.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.008

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 head0.219
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.208 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Computer AuditingSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207