Toward Ethical AI: A Qualitative Analysis of Stakeholder Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems become increasingly integrated into various aspects of daily life, concerns about privacy and ethical accountability are gaining prominence. This study explores stakeholder perspectives on privacy in AI systems, focusing on educators, parents, and AI professionals. Using qualitative analysis of survey responses from 227 participants, the research identifies key privacy risks, including data breaches, ethical misuse, and excessive data collection, alongside perceived benefits such as personalized services, enhanced efficiency, and educational advancements. Stakeholders emphasized the need for transparency, privacy-by-design, user empowerment, and ethical oversight to address privacy concerns effectively. The findings provide actionable insights into balancing the benefits of AI with robust privacy protections, catering to the diverse needs of stakeholders. Recommendations include implementing selective data use, fostering transparency, promoting user autonomy, and integrating ethical principles into AI development. This study contributes to the ongoing discourse on ethical AI, offering guidance for designing privacy-centric systems that align with societal values and build trust among users. By addressing privacy challenges, this research underscores the importance of developing AI technologies that are not only innovative but also ethically sound and responsive to the concerns of all stakeholders.
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 | 0.045 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".