MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7125979308 · doi:10.1109/ica67499.2025.00055

Human Rights Risks of Autonomous AI Agents

2025· article· W7125979308 on OpenAlexaff
Talita Dias

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEthics and Social Impacts of AI
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman rightsAccountabilityOperationalizationFraming (construction)Order (exchange)Government (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Though not yet widespread, autonomous AI agents are expected to have capabilities that can amplify or create a number of risks to individuals and society. This paper identifies, among these, a catalog of potential human rights risks, tracing them back to the AI agent capabilities at their origin. This human rights framing can help reduce the likelihood of those risks by driving best practices in government and industry. But this requires a focus on operationalizing human rights through a smart mix of technical, legal, and policy measures in order to close accountability gaps.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.016
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.354 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEthics and Social Impacts of AI→French-language works237,207→