MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410874555 · doi:10.1177/08920206251344738

What can educational leaders learn from corporate AI ethics?

2025· article· en· W4410874555 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement in Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEthics and Social Impacts of AI
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Christian StudiesUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyEngineering ethicsPublic relationsEducational leadershipKnowledge managementPedagogyPolitical scienceManagementComputer scienceEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The widespread applicability of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in various organizational settings has led to the realization that ethical guidelines for responsible use are needed. Undoubtedly, the treatment of operational topics in corporate settings is expected to vary from their implementation in human service organizations, such as educational institutions. However, the significantly higher volume of development and utilization of AI technologies in private corporations has also observed a more organized and advanced effort to address the gap in needed ethical standards. This article discusses core principles, values and decision-making trends in AI ethics, as reflected in the recent business literature, and it conceptualizes their relevance to educational institutions and educational leaders’ strategic role.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.332 · 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