Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35910189›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2022

Politics by Automatic Means? A Critique of Artificial Intelligence Ethics at Work.

Matthew Cole, Callum Cant, Funda Ustek Spilda, Mark Graham

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Matthew ColeSocial Sciences Division, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Callum CantSocial Sciences Division, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Funda Ustek SpildaSocial Sciences Division, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Mark GrahamSocial Sciences Division, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Calls for "ethical Artificial Intelligence" are legion, with a recent proliferation of government and industry guidelines attempting to establish ethical rules and boundaries for this new technology. With few exceptions, they interpret Artificial Intelligence (AI) ethics narrowly in a liberal political framework of privacy concerns, transparency, governance and non-discrimination. One of the main hurdles to establishing "ethical AI" remains how to operationalize high-level principles such that they translate to technology design, development and use in the labor process. This is because organizations can end up interpreting ethics in an

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecollective bargainingethicsindustrial relationsjob qualitylabortechnological changework

Identifiers

PMID35910189
PMCPMC9334705

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.