MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388671107 · doi:10.31235/osf.io/8e6pv

What is "ethical AI"? Leading or participating on an ethical team and/or working in statistics, data science, and artificial intelligence

2023· preprint· en· W4388671107 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rochelle E. Tractenberg

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistics Education and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeclarationSoftware deploymentComputer scienceEthical codeArtificial intelligenceEngineering ethicsSoftware engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial Intelligence (AI) arises from computing and statistics, and as such, can be developed and deployed ethically when the ethical practice standards of each of these fields are followed. The Toronto Declaration was formulated in 2018 specifically to ensure that machine learning and AI could be held accountable for respecting, and promoting, universal human rights. The Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct of the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM, 2018) and the Ethical Guidelines for Statistical Practice of the American Statistical Association (ASA, 2022) describe the ethical practice standards for any person at any level of training or job title who utilizes computing (ACM) or statistical practices (ASA). These three reference documents can together define "what is ethical AI". All development, deployment, and use of computing is covered by the ACM Code; the ASA defines statistical practice to "include activities such as: designing the collection of, summarizing, processing, analyzing, interpreting, or presenting, data; as well as model or algorithm development and deployment.” Just as the Toronto Declaration describes universal human rights protections, the ACM and ASA ethical practice standards apply to professionals, individuals with diverse background or jobs that include computing and statistical practices at any point, and employers, clients, organizations, and institutions that employ or utilize the outputs from computing and statistical practices worldwide. The ACM Code of Ethics has four Principles, including one specifically for Leaders with seven elements. The ASA Ethical Guidelines include eight principles and an Appendix; one Guideline Principle (G. Responsibilities of Leaders, Supervisors, and Mentors in Statistical Practice) with its five elements and the Appendix (Responsibilities of organizations/institutions) with its 12 elements are specifically intended to support workplace engagement with, and support of, ethical statistical practices, plus, the specific roles and responsibilities of those in leadership positions. These ethical practice standards can support both individual practitioners', and leaders', meeting their obligations for ethical AI worldwide.

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)0.080
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.199
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 score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0800.199
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0130.112
Scholarly communication0.0330.029
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0180.027
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.807
GPT teacher head0.612
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStatistics Education and MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207