MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402498672 · doi:10.1080/01442872.2024.2400922

Toward responsible artificial intelligence in health: regulatory structures and power dynamics of the big tech industry in the United States

2024· article· en· W4402498672 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

VenuePolicy Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHigh techDynamics (music)Power (physics)Big dataBusinessPolitical scienceLawComputer scienceSociologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence (AI) offers potential strategies to address existing challenges facing health systems in the United States (U.S.). However, the development of the AI market for health care over the past decade also poses risks to public value in the short- and long-term. In this commentary, we describe the nature of large technology companies’ interface with health care in the U.S., outlining their roles in the context of their leadership in the platform economy. First, we describe the risks associated with the potential dominance of Big Tech companies in healthcare and outline the short-term context for regulating AI as it relates to Big Tech’s role in healthcare. We then explore the possibilities of regulatory approaches that might encourage the anticipation of risks and enforcement of responsible technology practices while retaining the goal of enhancing public value as a primary aim of healthcare policy.

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.653
GPT teacher head0.589
Teacher spread0.064 · 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