MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411952553 · doi:10.17705/2msqe.00111

How HireVue Created “Glass Box” Transparency for its AI Application

2025· article· en· W4411952553 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Monideepa Tarafdar, Irina Rets, Lindsey Zuloaga

Bibliographic record

VenueMIS Quarterly Executive · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)Computer scienceBusinessComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

HireVue develops and sells an AI application for assessing job interviews. We describe several transparency-related challenges HireVue faced and explain how it addressed them through five types of transparency practices. Drawing from these practices, we provide recommendations for AI software companies to create an AI transparency. Instead of focusing on opening a technical “black box” to disclose how an AI algorithm works, transparency should encompass software design and development processes, as well as organizational functions, AI application interfaces, clients’ needs and regu- latory requirements.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.263 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMIS Quarterly ExecutiveSame topicVirtual Reality Applications and ImpactsFrench-language works237,207