MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6947915476 · doi:10.4224/40001806

Applied AI ethics: report 2019

2019· report· en· W6947915476 on OpenAlexaffvenue

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2019
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApplications of artificial intelligenceBest practiceEthical issues

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is now commonplace to say that Artificial Intelligence (AI) has a huge potential range of applications, from biotechnologies to cybersecurity, from smart cities to health care. Indeed, AI is already having a major impact on our lives. Because of AI’s wide and deep impact, the House of Lords Select Committee on AI took the view—shared by nearly 1 all witnesses and subsequent commentators—that our societies need a common and applicable ethical framework, so that we can develop AI policies, regulations, technical standards, and business best practices in ways that are socially beneficial and environmentally sustainable.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0100.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0460.050

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.259 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARC→Same topicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change→French-language works237,207→