Teaching postsecondary students about the ethics of artificial intelligence: A scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of AI carries inherent risks such as algorithmic biases, security vulnerabilities, and ethical concerns related to privacy and data protection. Despite these risks, AI holds significant promise for social good, with applications ranging from improved healthcare diagnostics to enhanced education strategies. Teaching AI ethics in postsecondary settings has emerged as one of the strategies to mitigate AI-related harms. The objectives of this review are to (1) synthesize existing research related to teaching postsecondary students about the principles and practice of ethics and AI, and (2) identify how educators are evaluating changes in student knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors. This scoping review will follow the first five steps articulated by Arksey and O'Malley. A structured search strategy developed by an academic librarian incorporates three primary concept groups related to education, AI, and ethics. Database search strategies emphasize sensitivity rather than precision, given that a supervised machine learning tool will be used to assist in the identification of relevant abstracts. Searches will be conducted in the following academic databases: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, ERIC, LISTA, IEEE Xplore, APA PsycInfo, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Results will include an up-to-date synthesis of the current state of AI ethics education in postsecondary curricula, evaluated teaching strategies, and potential outcomes associated with AI ethics education. Search results will be reported according to the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Data charting will focus on AI ethics pedagogy. This review will inform future research, policy development, and teaching practices, offering valuable insights for educators, policymakers, and researchers working towards responsible AI integration. Findings will contribute to enhanced understandings of the complexities of AI ethics education and have the potential to shape the ways trainees in multiple disciplines learn about the ethical dimensions of AI in practice.
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 | 0.127 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.016 |
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".