Algorithmic accountabilities and health systems: A review and sociomaterial approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The perceived importance and difficulty of accounting for algorithms in health systems continues to inform scholarship and practice across diverse fields. While accountability is often framed as a normative good, less clear is exactly what kind of normative work accountability is expected to do, and how it is expected to do it. Drawing on contributions from science and technology studies, and especially sociomaterial perspectives on governance, in this article I review how algorithmic accountability has been conceptualized in the academic and grey literature. I introduce five normative logics characterizing discussions of algorithmic accountability: (1) accountability as verification, (2) accountability as participation, (3) accountability as social licence, (4) accountability as fiduciary duty, and (5) accountability as compliance. I critically engage with the styles of valuation these are predicated upon, including how each configures the algorithm as an object of reference, and discuss the implications of this approach for understanding how health-related worlds are created and sustained, and how they might be otherwise.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it