ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2023
Cultivation of human centered artificial intelligence: culturally adaptive thinking in education (CATE) for AI.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- An artificial intelligence application framework for nursing education: a scoping review based on the KAS model.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Climate-control ChatGPT for EFL writing and AI literacy.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Telerobotic surgery: a comprehensive two-decade evolution and the integration of emerging technologies.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Review
- Perceptions of Faculty and Students About Use of Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education: A Qualitative Study.Cureus · 2024Article
- Harnessing artificial intelligence and digital technology for enhancing routine immunization among zero-dose children.Digital healthReview
- Redesigning Nursing Curricula for Human-AI Collaboration Using a Fifth Industrial Revolution Framework: Discursive Paper.SAGE open nursingReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become ubiquitous in human society, and yet vast segments of the global population have no, little, or counterproductive information about AI. It is necessary to teach AI topics on a mass scale. While there is a rush to implement academic initiatives, scant attention has been paid to the unique challenges of teaching AI curricula to a global and culturally diverse audience with varying expectations of privacy, technological autonomy, risk preference, and knowledge sharing. Our study fills this void by focusing on AI elements in a new framework titled Culturally Adaptive Thinking in Education for AI (CATE-AI) to enable teaching AI concepts to culturally diverse learners. Failure to contextualize and sensitize AI education to culture and other categorical human-thought clusters, can lead to several undesirable effects including confusion, AI-phobia, cultural biases to AI, increased resistance toward AI technologies and AI education. We discuss and integrate human behavior theories, AI applications research, educational frameworks, and human centered AI principles to articulate CATE-AI. In the first part of this paper, we present the development a significantly enhanced version of CATE. In the second part, we explore textual data from AI related news articles to generate insights that lay the foundation for CATE-AI, and support our findings. The CATE-AI framework can help learners study artificial intelligence topics more effectively by serving as a basis for adapting and contextualizing AI to their sociocultural needs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.