Cited by 419Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Ethics and Social Impacts of AIPhilosophy and History of Science

Solving the Black Box Problem: A Normative Framework for Explainable Artificial Intelligence

Open access
Zednik, Carlos·2021·Philosophy & Technology

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13347-019-00382-7

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The technical complexity and opacity of algorithmic systems deprives workers of ability to understand and master the system that governs their work, limiting their voice and empowerment.

    “Moreover, the technical complexity and opacity of algorithmic systems187–189 deprives workers of the ability to understand and master the system that governs their work, which limits their voice and enpowerment172,185,190.”

    From Understanding and shaping the future of work with self-determination theory (2022) · cites this paper as [188]

    Section 3.1 identifies bank employees as operators and decision-makers, and §3.2 says a lack of relevant knowledge can prevent them from performing those roles. The paper does not establish the broader claim that opaque systems governing workers’ work limit their voice or empowerment. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Tax administrations' abundance of data favours AI use: the volume is too large for humans to examine directly, and random errors tend to cancel out, leaving a clear pattern for AI models to learn.

    “In this data-rich environment, tax administrations enjoy conditions that are very favourable to the use of AI technologies: 31 (i) the volume of data is so great that its direct examination is not feasible through human labour; 32 and (ii) the large amounts of data mean that any”
  • Information detailing which biomarkers and molecular interactions primarily result in the disease fingerprint is unknown and largely cannot be determined by current machine-learning methods.

    “Information detailing which biomarkers and molecular interactions primarily result in the disease fingerprint is unknown and largely cannot be determined by current machine-learning methods43.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Bechtel, W., & Richardson, R. C. (1993). Discovering Complexity: Decomposition and Localization as Strategies in Scientific Research (MIT Press ed.). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
  2. Hupkes, D., Veldhoen, S., & Zuidema, W. (2018). Visualisation and'diagnostic classifiers' reveal how recurrent and recursive neural networks process hierarchical structure. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 61, 907-926.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zednik, C.
Affiliations
Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Zednik, Carlos
Venue
Philosophy & Technology
Published
2019-12-20
Volume
34
Issue
2
Pages
265-288
ISSN
  • 2210-5433 (ISSN-L)
  • 2210-5441
OpenAlex
W2955132579
Cited by
419
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 67 · 2025: 95 · 2024: 87 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 74 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 3
FWCI
13.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Philosophy & Technology (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
Keywords
explainable AI, black box problem, opacity, normative framework, philosophy of science, feature visualization, diagnostic classification, machine learning transparency

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review