The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Towards "Anytime, Anywhere" Community Learning and Engagement around the Design of Public Sector AI
Open accessAbstract
Data-driven algorithmic and AI systems are increasingly being deployed to automate or augment decision processes across a wide range of public service settings. Yet community members are often unaware of the presence, operation, and impacts of these systems on their lives. With the shift towards algorithmic decision-making in public services, technology developers increasingly assume the role of de-facto policymakers, and opportunities for democratic participation are foreclosed. In this position paper, we articulate an early vision around the design of ubiquitous infrastructure for public learning and engagement around civic AI technologies. Building on this vision, we provide a list of questions that we hope can prompt stimulating conversations among the HCI community.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
Factors such as bias, fairness, privacy, and preserving fundamental democratic values play a pivotal role in shaping regulatory frameworks.
“Factors such as bias, fairness, privacy, and preserving fundamental democratic values play a pivotal role in shaping regulatory frameworks [27].”
From Opportunities, challenges, and benefits of AI innovation in government services: a review (2024) · cites this paper as [27]
The Abstract (page not provided) raises concern that public-sector AI can foreclose democratic participation, and §2, “Research Vision and Open Questions,” advocates community involvement in impactful policy decisions. These passages support the democratic-participation aspect, but the paper does not say that bias, fairness, privacy, and democratic values shape regulatory frameworks. (LLM, conf=0.77)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredRisks of AI evaluated within bias, fairness, privacy, and preserving democratic values present formidable challenges.
“However, the associated risks, evaluated within the framework of broader concepts like bias, fairness, privacy, and preserving democratic values, present formidable challenges [27].”
From Opportunities, challenges, and benefits of AI innovation in government services: a review (2024) · cites this paper as [27]
The Abstract says that public-sector AI can foreclose opportunities for democratic participation, and Section 2 raises concerns about communities disproportionately impacted by AI. The paper does not frame these challenges in terms of privacy or explicitly evaluate the claimed set of bias, fairness, privacy, and democratic values; its references to bias and fairness appear in cited works' titles. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
Cited by 3
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- Ali Alkhatib and Michael Bernstein. 2019. Street-level algorithms: A theory at the gaps between policy and decisions. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-13.
- Kirsten Boehner and Carl DiSalvo. 2016. Data, design and civics: An exploratory study of civic tech. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2970-2981.
- Alexandra Chouldechova. 2017. Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments. Big data 5, 2 (2017), 153-163.
- 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 Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency. PMLR, 134-148.
- Wesley Hanwen Deng, Bill Boyuan Guo, Alicia Devos, Hong Shen, Motahhare Eslami, and Kenneth Holstein. 2022. Understanding Practices, Challenges, and Opportunities for User-Driven Algorithm Auditing in Industry Practice. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03709 (2022). · arXiv
- Wesley Hanwen Deng, Manish Nagireddy, Michelle Seng Ah Lee, Jatinder Singh, Zhiwei Steven Wu, Kenneth Holstein, and Haiyi Zhu. 2022. Exploring How Machine Learning Practitioners (Try To) Use Fairness Toolkits. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, Seoul Republic of Korea, 473-484. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533113 · DOI · Paper page
- Yen-Chia Hsu, Himanshu Verma, Andrea Mauri, Illah Nourbakhsh, Alessandro Bozzon, et al. 2022. Empowering local communities using artificial intelligence. Patterns 3, 3 (2022), 100449.
- 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. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.09743 (2023). · arXiv
- Min Kyung Lee, Daniel Kusbit, Anson Kahng, Ji Tae Kim, Xinran Yuan, Allissa Chan, Daniel See, Ritesh Noothigattu, Siheon Lee, Alexandros Psomas, et al. 2019. WeBuildAI: Participatory framework for algorithmic governance. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1-35.
- 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 (2021), 309-334.
- Duri Long, Takeria Blunt, and Brian Magerko. 2021. Co-designing AI literacy exhibits for informal learning spaces. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1-35.
- Duri Long, Mikhail Jacob, and Brian Magerko. 2019. Designing co-creative AI for public spaces. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Creativity and Cognition. 271-284.
- Deirdre K Mulligan and Kenneth A Bamberger. 2019. Procurement as policy: Administrative process for machine learning. Berkeley Tech. LJ 34 (2019), 773.
- Ziad Obermeyer, Brian Powers, Christine Vogeli, and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2019. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science 366, 6464 (2019), 447-453.
- Brandon Reynante, Steven P Dow, and Narges Mahyar. 2021. A framework for open civic design: Integrating public participation, crowdsourcing, and design thinking. Digital Government: Research and Practice 2, 4 (2021), 1-22.
- 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
- Hong Shen, Leijie Wang, Wesley H Deng, Ciell Brusse, Ronald Velgersdijk, and Haiyi Zhu. 2022. The model card authoring toolkit: Toward community-centered, deliberation-driven AI design. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 440-451.
- Michael Veale, Max Van Kleek, and Reuben Binns. 2018. Fairness and accountability design needs for algorithmic support in high-stakes public sector decision-making. In Proceedings of the 2018 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. 1-14.
Metadata
- Authors
- Deng, W. H., Eslami, M., & Holstein, K.
- Affiliations
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2304.00167
- OpenAlex
- W4362598053
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
- Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Smart Cities and Technologies
- Keywords
- public sector AI, algorithmic decision-making, citizen participation, community learning, democratic participation, AI literacy, public services
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
