Features of Classification of Crimes Committed by Persons using Artificial Intelligence Technologies in Healthcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recognizing positive possibilities of artificial intelligence technologies in healthcare, as well as current ways to use them, the author identifies the main forms of implementation of digital innovation: physical form in the form of a medical robot and intellectual form in the form of software, registered as medical devices. It is stated that the legal issues related to bringing to justice for actions related to the use of intelligent systems in healthcare, which led to negative consequences, including harm to the life and health of patients, have yet to be resolved. According to the current legal regulation in Russia it is a medical organization and a medical professional using artificial intelligence systems or medical robotics equipped with digital technologies who are held liable for the harm caused to the life and (or) health of citizens while providing them with medical care. In turn, system developers, as well as those who train a system based on artificial intelligence (developers of artificial intelligence systems), are not held liable. The problems of classification of crimes committed by medical professionals using artificial intelligence technologies in healthcare are considered. A medical worker providing medical care using artificial intelligence may be the subject of a crime under Part 2 of Article 109 and part 2 of Article 118 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, but not under Article 238 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In addition, the rules for the classification of crimes committed by other entities (the operator of information systems) using artificial intelligence technologies are formulated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".