Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41422280›Full record

ArticleScientific data2025

Responsible AI measures dataset for ethics evaluation of AI systems.

Shalaleh Rismani, Leah Davis, Bonam Mingole, Negar Rostamzadeh, Renee Shelby, AJung Moon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific data, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Shalaleh RismaniMcGill University, Montréal, Canada. shalaleh.rismani@mail.mcgill.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5281-2428
Leah DavisMcGill University, Montréal, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-9340-1234
Bonam MingolePennsylvania State University, State College, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-9698-9276
Negar RostamzadehGoogle Research, Montreal, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9638-4664
Renee ShelbyGoogle Research, San Francisco, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4720-3844
AJung MoonMcGill University, Montréal, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9387-6284

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Meaningful governance of any system requires the system to be assessed and monitored effectively. In the domain of Artificial Intelligence (AI), global efforts have established a set of ethical principles, including fairness, transparency, and privacy upon which AI governance expectations are being built. The computing research community has proposed numerous means of measuring an AI system's normative qualities along these principles. Current reporting of these measures is principle-specific, limited in scope, or otherwise dispersed across publication platforms, hindering the domain's ability to critique its practices. To address this, we introduce the Responsible AI Measures Dataset, consolidating 12,067 data points across 791 evaluation measures covering 11 ethical principles. It is extracted from a corpus of computing literature (n = 257) published between 2011 and 2023. The dataset includes detailed descriptions of each measure, AI system characteristics, and publication metadata. An accompanying, interactive visualization tool supports usability and interpretation of the dataset. The Responsible AI Measures Dataset enables practitioners to explore existing assessment approaches and critically analyze how the computing domain measures normative concepts.

Identifiers

PMID41422280
PMCPMC12722731

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.