MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413059065 · doi:10.1057/s41599-025-05481-9

A call for transdisciplinary trust research in the artificial intelligence era

2025· article· en· W4413059065 on OpenAlexaff
Frank Krüeger, René Riedl‬, Jennifer A. Bartz, Karen S. Cook, David Gefen, Peter A. Hancock, Sirkka L. Järvenpää, Lydia Krabbendam, Mary R. Lee, Roger C. Mayer, Alexandra Mislin, Gernot Müller-Putz, Thomas Simpson, Haruto Takagishi, Paul A. M. Van Lange

Bibliographic record

VenueHumanities and Social Sciences Communications · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyPolitical scienceData scienceEngineering ethicsKnowledge managementComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trust is a cornerstone and enabler of human civilization, determining the very nature of how people interact with each other. The swift integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into daily life poses grand societal challenges and necessitates a reevaluation of trust. Our bibliometric literature review calls for scientists and stakeholders to cross traditional academic boundaries to address emerging and evolving societal challenges arising from AI. We propose a transdisciplinary research framework to understand and bolster trust in AI and address grand challenges in domains as diverse and urgent as misinformation, discrimination, and warfare.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.169
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.230
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1690.230
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0160.018
Science and technology studies0.0070.034
Scholarly communication0.0330.082
Open science0.0040.019
Research integrity0.0130.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.772
GPT teacher head0.592
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations11
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHumanities and Social Sciences CommunicationsSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207