Artificial intelligence, task complexity and uncertainty: analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of using algorithms in public service delivery under public administration theories
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
Purpose This article revisits some theories and concepts of public administration, including those related to public value, transaction costs and social equity, to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of using artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms in public service delivery. The author seeks to mobilize theory to guide AI-era public management practitioners and researchers. Design/methodology/approach The author uses an existing task classification model to mobilize and juxtapose public management theories against artificial intelligence potential impacts in public service delivery. Theories of social equity and transaction costs as well as some concepts such as red tape, efficiency and economy are used to argue that the discipline of public administration provides a foundation to ensure algorithms are used in a way that improves service delivery. Findings After presenting literature on the challenges and promises of using AI in public service, the study shows that while the adoption of algorithms in public service has benefits, some serious challenges still exist when looked at under the lenses of theory. Additionally, the author mobilizes the public administration concepts of agenda setting and coproduction and finds that designing AI-enabled public services should be centered on citizens who are not mere customers. As an implication for public management practice, this study shows that bringing citizens to the forefront of designing and implementing AI-delivered services is key to reducing the reproduction of social biases. Research limitations/implications As a fast-growing subject, artificial intelligence research in public management is yet to empirically test some of the theories that the study presented. Practical implications The paper vulgarizes some theories of public administration which practitioners can consider in the design and implementation of AI-enabled public services. Additionally, the study shows practitioners that bringing citizens to the forefront of designing and implementing AI-delivered services is key to reducing the reproduction of social biases. Social implications The paper informs a broad audience who might not be familiar with public administration theories and how those theories can be taken into consideration when adopting AI systems in service delivery. Originality/value This research is original, as, to the best of the author’s knowledge, no prior work has combined these concepts in analyzing AI in the public sector.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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