Introduction to the Issue on Artificial Intelligence in the Public Sector: Risks and Benefits of AI for Governments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly adopted by public sector organizations to provide better public services and to transform their internal processes. AI is now considered a key enabler for digital innovation and transformation in the public sector. However, AI is still relatively a new research area in the field of digital government. The term, AI, captures a wide range of technologies, techniques, and tools such as machine/deep learning, natural language processing, robotics, computer vision, and more recently Generative AI. While these AI technologies afford different applications and benefits in the government context, they also create social, ethical, and legal challenges. These challenges require solutions combining both technical (e.g., data and algorithmic solutions to minimize bias) and institutional (e.g., governance structures and processes) mechanisms. The special issue is a collection of articles that contribute to a better understanding of the issues associated with AI deployment in different areas of government operations. They cover AI applications in the areas of emergency response, policy analysis, public bids, and citizen participation. The contributions also address the challenge of realizing a legal transparency regime for AI in government and the effect of AI in bureaucratic decision-making.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.011 |
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".