MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388978771 · doi:10.22215/sppa-rgi-nov2023

Informing Possible Futures for the use of Third-Party Audits in AI Regulations

2023· report· en· W4388978771 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Benjamin Faveri, Graeme Auld

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, Law, and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAuditFutures contractBusinessFeature (linguistics)AccountingRisk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada’s proposed Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA) seeks to establish audit requirements for high-impact AI systems under certain circumstances and includes a proposed role for audits in assuring the actions, policies, and measures taken to manage the risks of AI impacts by entities engaged in regulated activities. At their most basic, audits are about checking that rules or expectations are being met by the target of the audit, with some level of confidence. The use of audits has expanded considerably in recent decades, and they have become a feature of many proposed and enacted regulatory approaches for governing the risks of negative AI impacts.

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)0.203
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.206
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2030.206
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0070.016
Scholarly communication0.0330.019
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0190.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.243
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.206 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEducation, Law, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207