Multi-stakeholder perspective on responsible artificial intelligence and acceptability in education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recognising a need to investigate the concerns and barriers to the acceptance of artificial intelligence (AI) in education, this study explores the acceptability of different AI applications in education from a multi-stakeholder perspective, including students, teachers, and parents. Acknowledging the transformative potential of AI, it addresses concerns related to data privacy, AI agency, transparency, explainability, and ethical deployment of AI. Using a vignette methodology, participants were presented with four scenarios where AI agency, transparency, explainability, and privacy were manipulated. After each scenario, participants completed a survey that captured their perceptions of AI's global utility, individual usefulness, justice, confidence, risk, and intention to use each scenario's AI if it was available. The data collection, comprising a final sample of 1198 participants, focused on individual responses to four AI use cases. A mediation analysis of the data indicated that acceptance and trust in AI vary significantly across stakeholder groups and AI applications.
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 | 0.050 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".