MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390923943 · doi:10.15804/ksm20230403

Using Artificial Intelligence in Public Management: Aspects of Integration

2023· article· en· W4390923943 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ліна Стороженко

Bibliographic record

VenueKrakowskie Studia Małopolskie · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Issues in Ukraine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic serviceKnowledge managementAdaptabilityFlexibility (engineering)BusinessEngineeringPublic relationsPolitical scienceComputer scienceEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article examines various aspects of the use of artificial intelligence in the public administration system. In particular, the world experience of implementing intelligent technologies in management activities of the USA, China, Singapore, Japan, UAE, India, UK, Canada, Germany as leaders in the implementation of effective digital innovations in the field of public administration is considered. Attention is focused on creating favorable conditions at the state level to support initiatives for the development of artificial intelligence and determining its exceptional role in the further development of society. An analysis of Ukrainian practices of integrating artificial intelligence technologies into public administration proves that the use of digital innovations in domestic management activities is a definite pointer for the introduction and approval of relevant social, political, legal, economic, cultural norms in order to form a modern digital society, the most important element of which there is the development and active integration of artificial intelligence technologies into the management system and the formation of a «new» netocratic public administration. The article highlights key aspects of the implementation of artificial intelligence in public administration, including automation of administrative processes, data analysis, open access and exchange of information, security and protection of information, flexibility and adaptability, ensuring public participation, electronic platforms for citizen participation, identification and counteraction corruption, hybrid service systems, efficiency and innovation.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.024
Scholarly communication0.0190.015
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0030.003
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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.147 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Other

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKrakowskie Studia MałopolskieSame topicEconomic Issues in UkraineFrench-language works237,207