The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Reviewable Automated Decision-Making
Open accessOverview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Public bodies retain legal responsibility even where private vendors supply or maintain algorithmic tools.
“Attribution remains essential, since public bodies retain legal responsibility even where private vendors supply or maintain algorithmic tools (Cobbe and Singh, 2020; Sheehy and Ng, 2024).”
From Judicial review of algorithmic administrative systems legality evidence and remedies in the smart city state (2026) · cites this paper as Cobbe and Singh, 2020
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ameen, K. S., Towfiq, T. A., Mousa, K. M., & Pooyanmehr, M. (2026) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2026.1802986 · Cited by 4
“Proposals for “reviewable” automated decision-making suggest that accountability should be grounded in documentation, system logs, traceable decision pathways, and clear duties assigned to public bodies, even when external tools are involved (Cobbe and Singh, 2020; Sheehy and Ng, 2024).”
Influential
Metadata
- Authors
- Cobbe, J., & Singh, J.
- Venue
- Computer Law & Security Review
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-11
- Volume
- 39
- Pages
- 105475
- ISSN
- 2212-473X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3093830286
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 2.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- Locations
- Computer law & security review (publishedVersion)
- Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Apollo
- Funders
- University of Cambridge
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
- Microsoft
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Keywords
- reviewability, automated decision-making, accountability, machine learning, socio-technical systems, administrative law, judicial review, public sector, record keeping, logging, legal compliance, regulatory oversight, explanation
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
