Trust norms for generative AI data gathering in the African context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Can trust norms within the African moral system support data gathering for Generative AI (GenAI) development in African society? Recent developments in the field of large language models, such as GenAI, including models like ChatGPT and Midjourney, have identified a common issue with these GenAI models known as “AI hallucination,” which involves the presentation of misinformation as facts along with its potential downside of facilitating public distrust in AI performance. In the African context, this paper frames unsupportive data-gathering norms as a contributory factor to issues such as AI hallucination and investigates the following claims. First, this paper explores the claim that knowledge in the African context exists in both esoteric and exoteric forms, incorporating such diverse knowledge as data could imply that a GenAI tailored for Africa may have unlimited accessibility across all contexts. Second, this paper acknowledges the formidable challenge of amassing a substantial volume of data, which encompasses esoteric information, requisite for the development of a GenAI model, positing that the establishment of a foundational framework for data collection, rooted in trust norms that is culturally resonant, has the potential to engender trust dynamics between data providers and collectors. Lastly, this paper recommends that trust norms in the African context require recalibration to align with contemporary social progress, while preserving their core values, to accommodate innovative data-gathering methodologies for a GenAI tailored to the African setting. This paper contributes to how trust culture within the African context, particularly in the domain of GenAI for African society, propels the development of Afro-AI technologies.
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 | 0.029 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".