MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Appropriateness of Empathy in AI: A Signal-Cost Perspective

2025· article· W7125638789 on OpenAlexaff
Tao Wang, Juan Chi-Ching, Harold Lee

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)EmpathyPerspective-takingQualitative researchContext (archaeology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The appropriateness of empathy in AI has emerged as a critical concern, as excessive empathy risks seeming manipulative while insufficient empathy appears dismissive. While prior research has explored how to quantify empathy in AI, few studies examine whether such empathy is contextually appropriate. This paper introduces an economic perspective by applying signaling theory to human-AI conversations. We propose Signal Cost Proxies (emotional richness, perspective-taking, and contextual tailoring) mapped to affective, cognitive, and associative empathy. This multidimensional framework enables systematic evaluation of empathy not just by presence, but by its appropriateness relative to user demand.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)French-language works237,207