AI Governance: A Challenge for Public Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlabelled: The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) is structuralizing social, political, and economic determinants of health into the invisible algorithms that shape all facets of modern life. Nevertheless, AI holds immense potential as a public health tool, enabling beneficial objectives such as precision public health and medicine. Developing an AI governance framework that can maximize the benefits and minimize the risks of AI is a significant challenge. The benefits of public health engagement in AI governance could be extensive. Here, we describe how several public health concepts can enhance AI governance. Specifically, we explain how (1) harm reduction can provide a framework for navigating the governance debate between traditional regulation and "soft law" approaches; (2) a public health understanding of social determinants of health is crucial to optimally weigh the potential risks and benefits of AI; (3) public health ethics provides a toolset for guiding governance decisions where individual interests intersect with collective interests; and (4) a One Health approach can improve AI governance effectiveness while advancing public health outcomes. Public health theories, perspectives, and innovations could substantially enrich and improve AI governance, creating a more equitable and socially beneficial path for AI development.
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 | 0.066 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".