MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385353405 · doi:10.4236/jss.2023.117031

Past, Present and Tackling the Future of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Education: Maintaining Agency and Establishing AI Laws

2023· article· en· W4385353405 on OpenAlexafffund
Joanna Black

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Journal of Social Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)Generative grammarArtificial intelligenceAutonomyEngineeringEngineering ethicsSociologyControl (management)LawPolitical sciencePublic relationsComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The urgency to establish laws for using generative artificial intelligence (GAI) is upon our society. At the end of the year, 2022 OpenAI made available to an international public its ground-breaking software, ChatGPT which is utilized by 1.8 billion users per month. Never before has a technology application been so successful so quickly. In this paper, the author outlines a history of artificial intelligence (AI), discusses ways in which generative artificial intelligence (GAI) technologies are used today, and delineates the future use of GAIs in education for all areas of study. A focus is on analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of GAIs with particular attention to the consideration of human agency versus machine agency. The author examines ways to avoid problems using GAIs currently. Also considered are ways in which human beings can use GAIs in the future while maintaining their own power, autonomy and control. To support this, Marshall McLuhan’s laws for the electronic media are revised as “Laws of Generative Artificial Intelligence” to aid educators from kindergarten to higher education for teaching in the “GAI Era”.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.036
Scholarly communication0.0150.020
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Journal of Social SciencesSame topicArtificial Intelligence in EducationFrench-language works237,207