MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414790085 · doi:10.21900/j.alise.2025.2035

Strengthening our Resolve

2025· article· en· W4414790085 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ALISE Annual Conference · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Education, Practice, and Leadership
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDignityConversationInformation ethicsHonorPosition (finance)Frame (networking)Ethics of technology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much has been written and discussed about artificial intelligence (AI) and growing sentiment suggests it is here to stay. How should AI be used, positioned, developed and governed? Will AI be the solution to persistent and inconceivable challenges, positioning early adopters for competitive advantage and economic growth? Questions and concerns abound but it is time we move beyond debate and come to resolution regarding ethical AI standards and policies to influence and govern use. Co-sponsored by the Information Policy and Information Ethics special interest groups (SIGs), this proposal is for a pair of 90-minute speaker panels, facilitated by the respective SIG convenors. This joint-panel presents a continuous conversation to strengthen our resolve of ethical AI standards and policies. Panelists will present intercultural and geopolitical perspectives to frame an ethical stance that will be workshopped across panels for an ethical pedagogical position to inform policy. The first panel, AI Ethical Standards: Resolving to make AI ethical decisions, will feature four speakers focusing on ethical considerations. Kyle Jones (Indiana University Indianapolis) will present his development of the course “AI for Information Professionals,” focusing primarily on the boundaries (and lack thereof) of pedagogical ethics when designing a course for and with generative AI tools. Clara Belitz (University of Illinois) will present research on the usage of AI in middle and high school mathematics classes in the United States, centering student experiences with these systems, speaking to how “AI fairness” is conceptualized and measured. John Burgess (University of Alabama) will speak on human dignity and AI from a sustainability ethics perspective, drawing on the work of Emmanuel Levinas. Finally, Spencer Lilley (Victoria University of Wellington) will speak on ethics from an Indigenous perspective, including transparency of training AI, the use of this data to spread mis-/disinformation about Indigenous peoples, and implications for indigenous intellectual and cultural property rights. We acknowledge and appreciate the individual and collective decolonizing efforts and commitments of our SIG members. Our conversations reflect complex intercultural challenges, which we discuss with an ethic of care, confidentiality, and intellectual curiosity and respect for divergent perspectives and practices.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.330
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.287 · 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