Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developments in artificial intelligence and robotics promise increased interaction between humans and autonomous machines, presenting novel risks of accidental harm to individuals and property. This thesis situates the problem of autonomous-machine-caused harm within tort law’s doctrinal and theoretical framework, conceived as a practice of corrective justice. Crucially, due to machine-learning capabilities, harmful effects of autonomous machines may be principally un-foreseeable, and therefore, not legally attributable to the human agency of designers, manufacturers or users. This thesis assesses which tort doctrines—negligence, strict liability or vicarious liability—are most amenable to developing a theory of liability for autonomous-machine-caused harm. To this end, it argues that the doctrine of vicarious liability may be reconceived to hold human or corporate deployers vicariously liable for tortious harm caused by autonomous machines in the course of deployment. Under this approach, autonomous machines constitute a novel category of legal subject: pure legal agents without legal personhood.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".