通过prism - ethics知情范围审查指南,了解人工智能伦理指南制定中证据的使用情况

IF 5.7 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS
Simon Knight
{"title":"通过prism - ethics知情范围审查指南,了解人工智能伦理指南制定中证据的使用情况","authors":"Simon Knight","doi":"10.1016/j.caeo.2025.100281","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>There have been recent calls for new ethics guidelines regarding the use of artificial intelligence in research. How should we go about developing such ethics guidance documents with respect to emerging contexts such as new technologies, and established domains such as research in education? This paper provides a PRISMA-ETHICS informed scoping review of approaches to ethics guideline development, the structures of ethics guidelines, and their audiences and purposes drawing on the context of education and AI.</div></div><div><h3>Search and synthesis approach</h3><div>A search of scholarly and grey literature was conducted to identify both ethics guidelines and material discussing their development; <em>n</em> = 592 distinct items were identified, including 182 that identified via recent reviews of AI ethics guidelines. <em>n</em> = 47 guideline-sets were identified as ‘guidelines’.</div></div><div><h3>Data extraction and analysis</h3><div>Guidelines were analysed with respect to their development approach, audience and purpose, and structural elements through which guidance is delivered; most included statements regarding their development approach (79 %) and audience (72 %). Where evidence underpinning the guidance was discussed, it was largely at a global content level (69 %), rather than with respect to the specific context/domain of the guideline use, principles drawn on, or approaches and strategies one might adopt in navigating ethical issues (23, 29, and 21 % respectively). Across the guidelines the only universal feature was the provision of an overview statement. We conclude with recommendations regarding the development of ethics guidelines, and their structure.</div></div><div><h3>Funding</h3><div>No external funding was received.</div></div><div><h3>Systematic review registration</h3><div>The review was not pre-registered.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100322,"journal":{"name":"Computers and Education Open","volume":"9 ","pages":"Article 100281"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding use of evidence in AI ethics guidelines development through a PRISMA-ETHICS informed scoping review of guidelines\",\"authors\":\"Simon Knight\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.caeo.2025.100281\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>There have been recent calls for new ethics guidelines regarding the use of artificial intelligence in research. How should we go about developing such ethics guidance documents with respect to emerging contexts such as new technologies, and established domains such as research in education? This paper provides a PRISMA-ETHICS informed scoping review of approaches to ethics guideline development, the structures of ethics guidelines, and their audiences and purposes drawing on the context of education and AI.</div></div><div><h3>Search and synthesis approach</h3><div>A search of scholarly and grey literature was conducted to identify both ethics guidelines and material discussing their development; <em>n</em> = 592 distinct items were identified, including 182 that identified via recent reviews of AI ethics guidelines. <em>n</em> = 47 guideline-sets were identified as ‘guidelines’.</div></div><div><h3>Data extraction and analysis</h3><div>Guidelines were analysed with respect to their development approach, audience and purpose, and structural elements through which guidance is delivered; most included statements regarding their development approach (79 %) and audience (72 %). Where evidence underpinning the guidance was discussed, it was largely at a global content level (69 %), rather than with respect to the specific context/domain of the guideline use, principles drawn on, or approaches and strategies one might adopt in navigating ethical issues (23, 29, and 21 % respectively). Across the guidelines the only universal feature was the provision of an overview statement. We conclude with recommendations regarding the development of ethics guidelines, and their structure.</div></div><div><h3>Funding</h3><div>No external funding was received.</div></div><div><h3>Systematic review registration</h3><div>The review was not pre-registered.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100322,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Computers and Education Open\",\"volume\":\"9 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100281\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Computers and Education Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666557325000400\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers and Education Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666557325000400","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近有人呼吁制定关于在研究中使用人工智能的新伦理准则。我们应该如何针对新兴背景(如新技术)和既定领域(如教育研究)制定这样的伦理指导文件?本文根据教育和人工智能的背景,对伦理准则制定的方法、伦理准则的结构及其受众和目的进行了prism - ethics知情范围审查。检索和综合方法:对学术文献和灰色文献进行检索,以确定伦理准则和讨论其发展的材料;n = 592个不同的项目被确定,其中182个是通过最近对人工智能伦理准则的审查确定的。N = 47个指南集被确定为“指南”。数据提取和分析对指南的制定方法、受众和目的以及提供指南的结构要素进行了分析;大多数都包含了关于他们的开发方法(79%)和受众(72%)的声明。在讨论支持指南的证据时,主要是在全球内容层面(69%),而不是在指南使用的特定背景/领域、所采用的原则或在处理伦理问题时可能采用的方法和策略(分别为23%、29%和21%)。在所有指导方针中,唯一的通用特征是提供概述声明。最后,我们提出了关于制定道德准则及其结构的建议。没有收到外部资金。系统综述注册该综述未进行预注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Understanding use of evidence in AI ethics guidelines development through a PRISMA-ETHICS informed scoping review of guidelines

Objectives

There have been recent calls for new ethics guidelines regarding the use of artificial intelligence in research. How should we go about developing such ethics guidance documents with respect to emerging contexts such as new technologies, and established domains such as research in education? This paper provides a PRISMA-ETHICS informed scoping review of approaches to ethics guideline development, the structures of ethics guidelines, and their audiences and purposes drawing on the context of education and AI.

Search and synthesis approach

A search of scholarly and grey literature was conducted to identify both ethics guidelines and material discussing their development; n = 592 distinct items were identified, including 182 that identified via recent reviews of AI ethics guidelines. n = 47 guideline-sets were identified as ‘guidelines’.

Data extraction and analysis

Guidelines were analysed with respect to their development approach, audience and purpose, and structural elements through which guidance is delivered; most included statements regarding their development approach (79 %) and audience (72 %). Where evidence underpinning the guidance was discussed, it was largely at a global content level (69 %), rather than with respect to the specific context/domain of the guideline use, principles drawn on, or approaches and strategies one might adopt in navigating ethical issues (23, 29, and 21 % respectively). Across the guidelines the only universal feature was the provision of an overview statement. We conclude with recommendations regarding the development of ethics guidelines, and their structure.

Funding

No external funding was received.

Systematic review registration

The review was not pre-registered.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信