Multi-stakeholder perspective on responsible artificial intelligence and acceptability in education
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.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it