MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7018152136

Comité de ética de algoritmos

2019· other· es· W7018152136 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMAPFRE (Fundación Mapfre) · 2019
Typeother
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEthics and Social Impacts of AI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Government (linguistics)Power (physics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sumario: El desarrollo y uso de los algoritmos de la inteligencia artificial en la industria del seguro requiere un compromiso ético por las aseguradoras, los llamados sesgos éticos que deben ser evitados dentro del marco de la economía del bien social. La emergencia es dotar de valores éticos a la modelización predictiva. El buen uso de la inteligencia artificial está siendo objeto de reflexión por parte de distintos estamentos: la Comisión Europea, la Declaración de Montreal, the World Economic Forum Davos y el Comité Ético Alianza para la Inteligencia Artificial

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)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0170.014
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.007

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMAPFRE (Fundación Mapfre)Same topicEthics and Social Impacts of AIFrench-language works237,207