Advancing AI Data Ethics in Nursing: Future Directions for Nursing Practice, Research, and Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNSTRUCTURED: The ethics of artificial intelligence (AI) are increasingly recognized due to concerns such as algorithmic bias, opacity, trust issues, data security, and fairness. Specifically, machine learning algorithms, central to AI technologies, are essential in striving for ethically sound systems that mimic human intelligence. These technologies rely heavily on data, which often remain obscured within complex systems and must be prioritized for ethical collection, processing, and usage. The significance of data ethics in achieving responsible AI was first highlighted in the broader context of healthcare and subsequently in nursing. This presentation explores the principles of data ethics, drawing on relevant frameworks and strategies identified through a formal literature review. These principles apply to real-world and synthetic data in AI and machine learning contexts. Additionally, the data-centric AI paradigm is briefly examined, emphasizing its focus on data quality and the ethical development of AI solutions that integrate human-centered domain expertise. The ethical considerations specific to nursing are addressed, including four recommendations for future directions in nursing practice, research, and education and two hypothetical nurse-focused ethical case studies. The primary objectives are to position nurses to actively participate in AI and data ethics, thereby contributing to creating high-quality, relevant data for machine learning applications.
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 | 0.104 | 0.144 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".