CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 12Ethics and Social Impacts of AIPublic Procurement and PolicyE-Government and Public Services

Legacy Procurement Practices Shape How U.S. Cities Govern AI: Understanding Government Employees' Practices, Challenges, and Needs

Open access
Johnson, Nari, Silva, Elise, Leon, Harrison, Eslami, Motahhare, Schwanke, Beth, Dotan, Ravit, Heidari, Hoda·2025·Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency
DOI 10.1145/3715275.3732049
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Most AI tools adopted by governments are not developed internally, but instead are acquired from third-party vendors in a process called public procurement.In this paper, we conduct the first empirical study of how United States cities' procurement practices shape critical decisions surrounding public sector AI.We conduct semi-structured interviews with 19 city employees who oversee AI procurement across 7 U.S. cities.We found that cities' legacy procurement practices, which are shaped by decades-old laws and norms, establish infrastructure that determines which AI is purchased, and which actors hold decision-making power over procured AI.We characterize the emerging actions cities have taken to adapt their purchasing practices to address algorithmic harms.From employees' reflections on real-world AI procurements, we identify three key challenges that motivate but are not fully addressed by existing AI procurement reform initiatives.Based on these findings, we discuss implications and opportunities for the FAccT community to support cities in foreseeing and preventing AI harms throughout the public procurement processes.

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 · 10.1145/3715275.3732049

Cites

12 of 12 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?

  • In the US, the private sector currently exerts disproportionate influence over the AI systems purchased by the public sector, including their capabilities and technical specifications.

    “A recent study in the US context finds that the private sector currently exerts disproportionate influence over the AI systems that are purchased by the public sector, including their capabilities and technical specifications [94].”

    From “It’s Just a Wild, Wild West”: Harnessing Public Procurement as an AI Governance Mechanism (2026) · cites this paper as [94]

    The Introduction says most AI systems used by U.S. governments are developed and acquired from private vendors. Sections 5.1 and 5.2 report that vendors shape cities’ understanding of AI use cases, withhold technical information, and sometimes introduce features cities struggle to disable. These findings support substantial vendor influence, but the paper does not establish disproportionate influence over technical specifications across the U.S. public sector; its empirical findings concern interviewed cities. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The public sector rarely exercises its procurement power effectively; rigorous procurement processes are often bypassed through informal purchasing routes, and suppliers frequently withhold information or resist contractual changes.

    “Another US study confirms this trend, showing that the public sector rarely exercises its procurement power effectively: rigorous procurement processes are often bypassed through informal purchasing routes. Even when formal procurement takes place, suppliers frequently withhold information or resist contractual changes, which impacts the leverage of public authorities [94].”

    From “It’s Just a Wild, Wild West”: Harnessing Public Procurement as an AI Governance Mechanism (2026) · cites this paper as [94]

    The Conclusion reports that most AI technologies in the studied cities were acquired through alternative pathways rather than formal solicitation. Section 5.2 reports that AI vendors frequently withheld information, resisted changes to contract terms, and left city employees feeling they lacked leverage. The citing sentence extends these findings about municipal AI procurement to the public sector generally, which this study does not establish. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Public procurement could position the public sector as a gatekeeper, ensuring AI systems purchased by government agencies are better aligned with the public interest.

    “According to these works, public procurement could position the public sector as a gatekeeper, ensuring that AI systems purchased by government agencies (where such systems typically have direct societal impact) are better aligned with the public interest [13, 94].”

    From “It’s Just a Wild, Wild West”: Harnessing Public Procurement as an AI Governance Mechanism (2026) · cites this paper as [94]

  • An imbalance in which the private sector exerts disproportionate influence may lead to procurement of systems that prioritise corporate interests over those of citizens.

    “Such an imbalance may lead to the procurement of systems that prioritise corporate interests over those of citizens.”

    From “It’s Just a Wild, Wild West”: Harnessing Public Procurement as an AI Governance Mechanism (2026) · cites this paper as [94]

  • AI systems used in the public sector are often purchased from or outsourced to the private sector.

    “Often, such systems are purchased from private sector organisations [9, 94].”

    From “It’s Just a Wild, Wild West”: Harnessing Public Procurement as an AI Governance Mechanism (2026) · cites this paper as [94]

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: 54

  1. Margarita Boyarskaya, Alexandra Olteanu, and Kate Crawford. 2020. Overcom- ing Failures of Imagination in AI Infused System Development and Deployment. arXiv:2011.13416 [cs.CY] https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.13416 · arXiv
  2. Robert Brauneis and Ellen P Goodman. 2018. Algorithmic transparency for the smart city. Yale JL & Tech. 20 (2018), 103.
  3. Anna Brown, Alexandra Chouldechova, Emily Putnam-Hornstein, Andrew Tobin, and Rhema Vaithianathan. 2019. Toward Algorithmic Accountability in Public Services: A Qualitative Study of Affected Community Perspectives on Algorithmic Decision-making in Child Welfare Services. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300271 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Stephen Casper, Carson Ezell, Charlotte Siegmann, Noam Kolt, Taylor Lynn Curtis, Benjamin Bucknall, Andreas Haupt, Kevin Wei, Jérémy Scheurer, Marius Hobbhahn, Lee Sharkey, Satyapriya Krishna, Marvin Von Hagen, Silas Alberti, Alan Chan, Qinyi Sun, Michael Gerovitch, David Bau, Max Tegmark, David Krueger, and Dylan Hadfield-Menell. 2024. Black-Box Access is Insufficient for Rigorous AI Audits. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) (FAccT '24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2254-2272. https://doi.org/10. 1145/3630106.3659037 · DOI
  5. Hao-Fei Cheng, Logan Stapleton, Anna Kawakami, Venkatesh Sivaraman, Yanghuidi Cheng, Diana Qing, Adam Perer, Kenneth Holstein, Zhiwei Steven Wu, and Haiyi Zhu. 2022. How Child Welfare Workers Reduce Racial Dispar- ities in Algorithmic Decisions. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI '22). Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 162, 22 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3501831 · DOI
  6. Alexandra Chouldechova, Diana Benavides-Prado, Oleksandr Fialko, and Rhema Vaithianathan. 2018. A case study of algorithm-assisted decision making in child maltreatment hotline screening decisions. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 81), Sorelle A. Friedler and Christo Wilson (Eds.). PMLR, 134-148. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/chouldechova18a.html
  7. Peter Cihon, Moritz J. Kleinaltenkamp, Jonas Schuett, and Seth D. Baum. 2021. AI Certification: Advancing Ethical Practice by Reducing Information Asymmetries. IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society 2, 4 (Dec. 2021), 200-209. https: //doi.org/10.1109/tts.2021.3077595 · DOI
  8. Jerrell Coggburn. 2003. Exploring differences in the american states' procure- ment practices. Journal of Public Procurement 3 (03 2003). https://doi.org/10. 1108/JOPP-03-01-2003-B001 · DOI
  9. Amanda Coston, Anna Kawakami, Haiyi Zhu, Ken Holstein, and Hoda Heidari. 2023. A Validity Perspective on Evaluating the Justified Use of Data-driven Decision-making Algorithms. arXiv:2206.14983 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2206.14983 · arXiv
  10. Catherine Crump. 2016. Surveillance policy making by procurement. Wash. L. Rev. 91 (2016), 1595.
  11. William Sims Curry. 2019. Contracting for services in state and local government agencies. Routledge.
  12. David Freeman Engstrom and Daniel E. Ho. 2021. Chapter 3: Artificially in- telligent government: A review and agenda. In Research Handbook on Big Data Law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK. https://doi.org/10.4337/ 9781788972826.00009 · DOI
  13. Virginia Eubanks. 2018. Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin's Press.
  14. Casey Fiesler, Cliff Lampe, and Amy S. Bruckman. 2016. Reality and Perception of Copyright Terms of Service for Online Content Creation. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Com- puting (San Francisco, California, USA) (CSCW '16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1450-1461. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048. 2819931 · DOI
  15. Katherine B. Forrest. 2021. When Machines Can Be Judge, Jury, and Executioner: Justice in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. World Scientific.
  16. R. Geiger, Udayan Tandon, Anoolia Gakhokidze, Lian Song, and Lilly Irani. 2023. Rethinking Artificial Intelligence: Algorithmic Bias and Ethical Issues| Making Algorithms Public: Reimagining Auditing From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern. International Journal of Communication 18, 0 (2023). https: //ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/20811
  17. Jolien Grandia and Joanne Meehan. 2017. Public procurement as a policy tool: using procurement to reach desired outcomes in society. International Journal of Public Sector Management 30 (04 2017). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-03- 2017-0066 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Lara Groves, Jacob Metcalf, Alayna Kennedy, Briana Vecchione, and Andrew Strait. 2024. Auditing Work: Exploring the New York City algorithmic bias audit regime. arXiv:2402.08101 [cs.CY] https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.08101 · arXiv
  19. Kirsi-Maria Halonen. 2016. Disclosure rules in eu public procurement: Balancing between competition and transparency. Journal of Public Procurement 16 (04 2016), 528-553. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOPP-16-04-2016-B005 · DOI
  20. Bernard E. Harcourt. 2006. Against Prediction: Profiling, Policing, and Punishing in an Actuarial Age. The Chicago University Press.
  21. Merve Hickok. 2024. Public procurement of artificial intelligence systems: new risks and future proofing. AI & society 39, 3 (2024), 1213-1227.
  22. Nari Johnson, Sanika Moharana, Christina Harrington, Nazanin Andalibi, Hoda Heidari, and Motahhare Eslami. 2024. The Fall of an Algorithm: Characterizing the Dynamics Toward Abandonment. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) (FAccT '24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 337-358. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3630106.3658910 · DOI
  23. Kari Karppinen and Hallvard Moe. 2012. What We Talk about When We Talk about Document Analysis. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv36xvj36.12 · DOI
  24. Anna Kawakami, Amanda Coston, Hoda Heidari, Kenneth Holstein, and Haiyi Zhu. 2024. Studying Up Public Sector AI: How Networks of Power Relations Shape Agency Decisions Around AI Design and Use. arXiv:2405.12458 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.12458 · arXiv
  25. Anna Kawakami, Luke Guerdan, Yanghuidi Cheng, Kate Glazko, Matthew Lee, Scott Carter, Nikos Arechiga, Haiyi Zhu, and Kenneth Holstein. 2023. Training Towards Critical Use: Learning to Situate AI Predictions Relative to Human Knowledge. In Proceedings of The ACM Collective Intelligence Conference (Delft, Netherlands) (CI '23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 63-78. https://doi.org/10.1145/3582269.3615595 · DOI
  26. Anna Kawakami, Jordan Taylor, Sarah Fox, Haiyi Zhu, and Ken Holstein. 2024. AI Failure Loops in Feminized Labor: Understanding the Interplay of Workplace AI and Occupational Devaluation. Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society 7, 1 (Oct. 2024), 683-683. https://doi.org/10.1609/aies. v7i1.31670 · DOI
  27. Seyun Kim, Bonnie Fan, Willa Yunqi Yang, Jessie Ramey, Sarah E Fox, Haiyi Zhu, John Zimmerman, and Motahhare Eslami. 2024. Public Technologies Transforming Work of the Public and the Public Sector. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work (CHIWORK 2024, Vol. 31). ACM, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3663384.3663407 · DOI
  28. P. M. Krafft, Meg Young, Michael Katell, Jennifer E. Lee, Shankar Narayan, Micah Epstein, Dharma Dailey, Bernease Herman, Aaron Tam, Vivian Guetler, Corinne Bintz, Daniella Raz, Pa Ousman Jobe, Franziska Putz, Brian Robick, and Bissan Barghouti. 2021. An Action-Oriented AI Policy Toolkit for Technology Audits by Community Advocates and Activists. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Virtual Event, Canada) (FAccT '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 772-781. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445938 · DOI
  29. Tzu-Sheng Kuo, Hong Shen, Jisoo Geum, Nev Jones, Jason I. Hong, Haiyi Zhu, and Kenneth Holstein. 2023. Understanding Frontline Workers' and Unhoused Individuals' Perspectives on AI Used in Homeless Services. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI '23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 860, 17 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580882 · DOI
  30. Karen Levy, Kyla E. Chasalow, and Sarah Riley. 2021. Algorithms and Decision- Making in the Public Sector. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 17, 1 (Oct. 2021), 309-334. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041221-023808 · DOI
  31. Robert E Lloyd and Clifford P McCue. 2004. What is public procurement? Definitional problems and implications. In International Public Procurement Conference Proceedings, Vol. 3. 2-18.
  32. George Lăzăroiu, Luminit ,a Ionescu, Cristian Ut ,ă, Iulian Hurloiu, Mihai An- dronie, and Irina Dijmărescu. 2020. Environmentally Responsible Behavior and Sustainability Policy Adoption in Green Public Procurement. Sustainability 12, 5 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12052110 · DOI
  33. Michael A. Madaio, Luke Stark, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, and Hanna Wallach. 2020. Co-Designing Checklists to Understand Organizational Challenges and Opportunities around Fairness in AI. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3313831.3376445 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Christopher McCrudden. 2007. Buying Social Justice: Equality, Government Procurement, and Legal Change. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10. 1093/acprof:oso/9780199232420.001.0001 · DOI
  35. Nora McDonald, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Andrea Forte. 2019. Reliability and Inter-rater Reliability in Qualitative Research: Norms and Guidelines for CSCW and HCI Practice. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, CSCW, Article 72 (nov 2019), 23 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359174 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Pross Oluka, Godfrey Mugurusi, Peter Obicci, and Emmanuel Awuor. 2022. Human-centered artificial intelligence for the public sector: The gate keeping role of the public procurement professional. Procedia Computer Science 200 (04 2022), 1084-1092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.01.308 · DOI
  37. Elena Parmiggiani, Polyxeni Vassilakopoulou, and Ilias Pappas. 2024. Chap- ter 5: Reconfiguring human-AI collaboration: integrating chatbots in welfare services. In Research Handbook on Artificial Intelligence and Decision Mak- ing in Organizations. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, 97 -111. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781803926216.00013 · DOI
  38. Andrea Stefano Patrucco, Tommaso Agasisti, and Andreas Glas. 2020. Struc- turing Public Procurement in Local Governments: The Effect of Centralization, Standardization and Digitalization on Performance. Public Performance & Man- agement Review 44 (12 2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2020.1851267 · DOI
  39. Eric Prier and Clifford P McCue. 2009. The implications of a muddled definition of public procurement. Journal of Public Procurement 9, 3/4 (2009), 326-370.
  40. Dasha Pruss. 2023. Ghosting the Machine: Judicial Resistance to a Recidi- vism Risk Assessment Instrument. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Confer- ence on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Chicago, IL, USA) (FAccT '23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 312-323. https://doi.org/10.1145/3593013.3593999 · DOI
  41. Joaquin Quionero-Candela, Masashi Sugiyama, Anton Schwaighofer, and Neil D. Lawrence. 2009. Dataset Shift in Machine Learning. The MIT Press.
  42. Rashida Richardson. 2021. Best Practices for Government Procurement of Data-Driven Technologies. Available at SSRN 3855637 (2021).
  43. Samantha Robertson, Tonya Nguyen, and Niloufar Salehi. 2021. Modeling Assumptions Clash with the Real World: Transparency, Equity, and Community Challenges for Student Assignment Algorithms. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 589, 14 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445748 · DOI · Paper page
  44. David S Rubenstein. 2021. Acquiring ethical AI. Fla. L. Rev. 73 (2021), 747.
  45. Chinmayi Sharma and Sam Adler. 2024. The Power of the Collective Purse: Open-Source AI Governance and the GovAI Coalition. Retrieved January 16, 2025 from https://www.techpolicy.press/the-power-of-the-collective-purse- opensource-ai-governance-and-the-govai-coalition/
  46. Renee Shelby, Shalaleh Rismani, Kathryn Henne, AJung Moon, Negar Ros- tamzadeh, Paul Nicholas, N'Mah Yilla, Jess Gallegos, Andrew Smart, Emilio Garcia, and Gurleen Virk. 2023. Sociotechnical Harms of Algorithmic Systems: Scoping a Taxonomy for Harm Reduction. arXiv:2210.05791 [cs.HC] · arXiv
  47. Hong Shen, Alicia DeVos, Motahhare Eslami, and Kenneth Holstein. 2021. Ev- eryday Algorithm Auditing: Understanding the Power of Everyday Users in Surfacing Harmful Algorithmic Behaviors. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW2, Article 433 (Oct. 2021), 29 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3479577 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Elise Silva, Nari Johnson, Ravit Dotan, Motahhare Eslami, Hoda Heidari, and Beth Schwanke. 2025. Procuring Public-Sector AI: Guidance for Local Govern- ments. SSRN Electronic Journal (01 2025). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5227802 · DOI
  49. Logan Stapleton, Min Hun Lee, Diana Qing, Marya Wright, Alexandra Choulde- chova, Ken Holstein, Zhiwei Steven Wu, and Haiyi Zhu. 2022. Imagining new futures beyond predictive systems in child welfare: A qualitative study with impacted stakeholders. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (FAccT '22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1162-1177. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533177 · DOI
  50. Logan Stapleton, Devansh Saxena, Anna Kawakami, Tonya Nguyen, Asbjørn Ammitzbøll Flügge, Motahhare Eslami, Naja Holten Møller, Min Kyung Lee, Shion Guha, Kenneth Holstein, and Haiyi Zhu. 2022. Who Has an Interest in "Public Interest Technology"?: Critical Questions for Working with Local Governments & Impacted Communities. In Companion Publication of the 2022 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (Virtual Event, Taiwan) (CSCW'22 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 282-286. https://doi.org/10.1145/3500868. 3560484 · DOI
  51. Cedric Deslandes Whitney, Teresa Naval, Elizabeth Quepons, Simrandeep Singh, Steven R Rick, and Lilly Irani. 2021. HCI Tactics for Politics from Below: Meeting the Challenges of Smart Cities. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 297, 15 pages. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445314 · DOI
  52. Richmond Y. Wong, Michael A. Madaio, and Nick Merrill. 2023. Seeing Like a Toolkit: How Toolkits Envision the Work of AI Ethics. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7, CSCW1, Article 145 (April 2023), 27 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3579621 · DOI · Paper page
  53. Tom Zick, Mason Kortz, David Eaves, and Finale Doshi-Velez. 2024. AI Pro- curement Checklists: Revisiting Implementation in the Age of AI Governance. arXiv:2404.14660 [cs.CY] https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.14660 · arXiv
  54. Marta Ziosi and Dasha Pruss. 2024. Evidence of What, for Whom? The Socially Contested Role of Algorithmic Bias in a Predictive Policing Tool. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) (FAccT '24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1596-1608. https://doi.org/10.1145/3630106.3658991 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Johnson, N., Silva, E., Leon, H., Eslami, M., Schwanke, B., Dotan, R., & Heidari, H.
Affiliations
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • TechBetter, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency
Publisher
ACM
Published
2025-06-23
Pages
772-789
DOI
10.1145/3715275.3732049
OpenAlex
W4411541888
Cited by
12
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1
FWCI
11.17
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
National Science Foundation (IIS2229881)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Public Procurement and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
Keywords
public procurement, AI procurement, municipal government, algorithmic harms, AI governance, third-party vendors, procurement reform, public sector employees, decision-making power, American cities

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