MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398184184 · doi:10.1177/08404704241253985

The ethics of artificial intelligence in healthcare: From hands-on care to policy-making

2024· article· en· W4398184184 on OpenAlexaff
E.-H. Kluge

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careCommodityEngineering ethicsPsychologySociologyComputer scienceKnowledge managementPolitical scienceBusinessLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contemporary healthcare at all levels increasingly uses Artificial Intelligence (AI). However, since the various levels involve different tasks, have different data needs, and different ethical obligations, the AIs that are used have to be differently structured. Also, since healthcare construed as a commodity involves different ethical parameters from healthcare construed as a right, and different ethical systems entail logically distinct considerations, this also necessitates the need for differently structured AIs. This column sketches how and why this is the case. It concludes with a brief look at why AIs programmed into quantum computers would not change this.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207