AI Usage Cards: Responsibly Reporting AI-generated Content
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A c c ou ntab il it y "take responsibility" "indicate use" "approve content" Figure 1: A three-dimensional model of responsible AI usage (left) and the header of the AI Usage Cards template (right). ABSTRACT Given AI systems like ChatGPT can generate content that is indistinguishable from human-made work, the responsible use of this technology is a growing concern. Although understanding the benefits and harms of using AI systems requires more time, their rapid and indiscriminate adoption in practice is a reality. Currently, we lack a common framework and language to define and report the responsible use of AI for content generation. Prior work proposed guidelines for using AI in specific scenarios (e.g., robotics or medicine) which are not transferable to conducting and reporting scientific research. Our work makes two contributions: First, we propose a three-dimensional model consisting of transparency, integrity, and accountability to define the responsible use of AI. Second, we introduce "AI Usage Cards", a standardized way to report the use of AI in scientific research. Our model and cards allow users to reflect on key principles of responsible AI usage. They also help the research community trace, compare, and question various forms of AI usage and support the development of accepted community norms. The proposed framework and reporting system aim to promote ethical and responsible use of AI in scientific research and provide a standardized approach for reporting AI usage across different research fields. We also provide a free service to easily generate AI Usage Cards for scientific work via a questionnaire and export them in various machine-readable formats for inclusion in different work products at https://ai-cards.org.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.053 | 0.138 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.010 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".