MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409669363 · doi:10.31229/osf.io/y9swd_v1

Is AI Literate?

2017· preprint· en· W4409669363 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Ridley

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in Service Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence (AI) technology exhibits decision-making capabilities in specific domains on par with or exceeding that of human experts. Similarly, AI is increasingly making more mundane, if complex, decisions such as driving a car. AI such as IBM’s Watson ingest and synthesize enormous amounts of information. But is Watson literate? Do AI reflect literacy practices? Extending the idea of literacy or of being literate to AI challenges many assumptions about computers and ourselves. If we conclude that AI are literate, what does this mean for the idea of literacy? This exploration begins with two contentious ideas: What do we mean by AI? What do we mean by literacy?

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAI in Service InteractionsFrench-language works237,207