AI Thinking: a framework for rethinking artificial intelligence in practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence is transforming the way we work with information across disciplines and practical contexts. A growing range of disciplines are now involved in studying, developing and assessing the use of AI in practice, but these disciplines often employ conflicting understandings of what AI is and what is involved in its use. New, interdisciplinary approaches are needed to bridge competing conceptualizations of AI in practice and help shape the future of AI use. I propose a novel conceptual framework called AI Thinking, which models key decisions and considerations involved in AI use across disciplinary perspectives. AI Thinking addresses five practice-based competencies involved in applying AI in context: motivating AI use, formulating AI methods, assessing available tools and technologies, selecting appropriate data and situating AI in the sociotechnical contexts it is used in. A hypothetical case study is provided to illustrate the application of AI Thinking in practice. This article situates AI Thinking in broader cross-disciplinary discourses of AI, including its connections to ongoing discussions around AI literacy and AI-driven innovation. AI Thinking can help to bridge between the work of diverse disciplines, contexts and actors in the AI space, and shape AI efforts in education, industrial development and 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.
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 | 0.035 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.119 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".