MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401407121 · doi:10.1093/scipol/scae043

Risk-sensitive innovation: leveraging interactions between technologies to navigate technology risks

2024· article· en· W4401407121 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueScience and Public Policy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovation, Sustainability, Human-Machine Systems
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk analysis (engineering)PortfolioEmerging technologiesBusinessGovernment (linguistics)Knowledge managementComputer scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The advancement of low-emission technologies to curb climate change demonstrates how strategically managing the timing of technological developments can mitigate negative societal outcomes. We propose that a similar approach, which we term ‘risk-sensitive innovation’, can also address risks from emerging technologies like synthetic biology and artificial intelligence. Risk-sensitive innovation (RSI) leverages interactions between technologies to reduce specific risks across a technology portfolio. For instance, it may be beneficial to delay or halt risk-increasing technologies and preferentially advance risk-reducing defensive, safety, or substitute technologies. To be of practical use, RSI requires the ability to anticipate or identify impacts and intervene in the relative timing of technological advancements. Our analysis suggests that both are sometimes viable. Consideration of RSI may inform government research funding and technology regulation, as well as philanthropic research and development funders and corporate social responsibility measures.

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.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.429
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.026
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.363 · 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