Explainable AI for the Arts 3 (XAIxArts3)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The third workshop on Explainable AI for the Arts (XAIxArts) continues to bring together and expand a community of researchers and creative practitioners in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), Interaction Design, AI, explainable AI (XAI), and Digital Arts to explore the role of XAI for the Arts.XAI is a key concern of Responsible and Human-Centred AI, emphasising the use of HCI techniques to explore how to make complicated and opaque AI models more understandable to people.The previous workshops moved from mapping the landscape of XAI for the Arts to co-developing an XAIxArts manifesto.To continue driving discourse on XAIxArts, the anticipated outcomes of this workshop are: i) fresh insights into the evolving challenges of AI bias, lack of transparency and barriers to inclusivity through discussion of current and emerging XAIxArts practices; ii) co-developed speculative futures which expand XAIxArts discourse beyond post-hoc rationalisations of AI decisions into the imaginative possibilities of AI as an interlocutor in the creative process; iii) plans for a co-developed proposal of an edited book on XAIxArts; and iv) community expansion and engagement in wider discourses on Responsible and Human-Centred AI.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.007 |
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".