standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 7 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| object_of_study | the ethical concerns raised by decision-making algorithms, as they appear in the academic literature that discusses algorithms explicitly Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | object_of_study | the paper's words | |
| research_question | what kinds of ethical issues algorithms raise, and which of them belong to the algorithm rather than to the technology built on it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | a prescriptive six-part map of ethical concerns - three epistemic, two normative, one overarching - together with a review of the literature against it and an assessment of where the field is thin Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | method Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | the gap between how algorithms are designed and operated and how their ethical implications are understood Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | systematic-review Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: systematic-review | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. status: the informal ‘garbage in, garbage out’ principle clearly illustrates | mechanisms[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[5] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the review covers only literature that discusses algorithms explicitly, so neighbouring fields - AI ethics, surveillance studies, computer ethics, machine ethics - are touched on only briefly Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the authors accept there may be gaps in coverage for topics discussed only in relation to specific algorithm types rather than to algorithms as such Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | summarising every field in which algorithms are used is stated to be beyond reach, and the narrowing is justified on that ground Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | discussion of 'algorithm' runs into a level-of-abstraction problem: without fixing the level, parties talk past each other and the set of relevant observables is never bounded Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the authors state that a mature ethics of algorithms does not yet exist, and attribute that partly to the breadth of the concept itself Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | configuration is excluded from changing the object: tuning an algorithm to a task is said not to alter its mathematical representation or its implementation, which bounds what the map is about Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[5] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | algorithms that automate mundane tasks are excluded by declaration rather than by a criterion, and the class of interest is given without a precise definition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the paper marks its own normative judgements as observer-dependent rather than claiming a standard: whether evidence counts as misguided, and whether an outcome counts as unfair, are both said to depend on who is evaluating Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a reader taking the map's normative labels as the authors' own ethical standard - 'misguided' and 'unfair' are marked observer-dependent, so the framework cannot be read as smuggling in a particular ethics · outcome: held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the map is declared not to derive from any particular ethical theory, which is what lets readers who disagree about ethics still use it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the objection that the map only works for readers who already share the authors' ethical theory - it is declared to derive from none · outcome: held | controls[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | algorithm Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: algorithm | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | actionable insights Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: actionable insights | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | transparency Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: transparency | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | accessibility Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: accessibility | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | comprehensibility Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: comprehensibility | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | traceability Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: traceability | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | data analytics Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: data analytics | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | practice Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: practice | concepts[7] | 0.85 | the paper's words |
| concepts | profiling Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: profiling | concepts[8] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| concepts | information asymmetry Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: information asymmetry | concepts[9] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | level of abstraction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: level of abstraction | concepts[10] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | correlations Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: correlations | concepts[11] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | causal connection Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: causal connection | concepts[12] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | machine learning Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: machine learning | concepts[13] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | opacity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: opacity | concepts[14] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| concepts | bias Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: bias | concepts[15] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| concepts | discrimination Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: discrimination | concepts[16] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | responsibility Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: responsibility | concepts[17] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| concepts | implementation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: implementation | concepts[18] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | privacy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: privacy | concepts[19] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | algorithm - THE PAPER HOLDS TWO SENSES AT ONCE AND SAYS SO. The formal sense is Hill's mathematical construct; the sense it actually maps is the public-discourse one, which includes the implementation into a technology and the configuration of that technology to a task. Its own point is that a map of the ethics cannot use the formal sense alone Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | algorithm - AND THE CONFLATION IS NAMED AS THE OBSTACLE, not glossed over: the same word carries a mathematical construct and 'any procedure or decision process, however ill-defined', and the paper says the mapping exercise must address that before it can begin Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | transparency - NOT ONE PROPERTY BUT TWO CONDITIONS THAT COME APART: information can be accessible and still not comprehensible, which is exactly the case machine learning creates Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | fairness - EXPLICITLY OBSERVER-DEPENDENT HERE, a generic label for whatever ethical criteria an observer brings to the action rather than a standard the paper supplies Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | inconclusive evidence - THE PAPER'S OWN CATEGORY, defined as the uncertainty that is inherent rather than accidental: inferential and machine-learning methods yield knowledge that is probable and inevitably uncertain, so the deficiency cannot be engineered away Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[4] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| senses | inscrutable evidence - defined by a REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT IS NOT MET: the link between data and conclusion ought to be intelligible and open to scrutiny, and given how algorithms operate that is not automatically satisfied Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[5] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| senses | misguided evidence - defined from a limit shared by ALL data processing rather than anything specific to algorithms: the output can never exceed the input Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[6] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| senses | transformative effects - the category for harms with NO IDENTIFIABLE VICTIM AND NO OBVIOUS FAILURE: effects that look ethically neutral because nothing was broken, yet change how the world is conceptualised and organised Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[7] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | critiques → the treatment of distinct epistemic and normative concerns as a single cluster, so that fixing one is taken to address the rest Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | critiques → the assumption that better evidence reduces discrimination - the paper holds that it can be used to discriminate more efficiently Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | predicts → the expectation that increasingly better algorithmic tools will eliminate the ethical problems of algorithms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[2] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | critiques → the naive treatment of transparency as a panacea for ethical issues arising from new technologies Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | qualifies → the assumption that a more discerning algorithm is the ethically preferable one Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[4] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | correlations —distinct-from→ causal connection Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95 also in: correlations · causal connection | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | accessibility —part-of→ transparency Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95 also in: accessibility · transparency | concept_edges[1] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | comprehensibility —part-of→ transparency Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95 also in: comprehensibility · transparency | concept_edges[2] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | transparency —contrasted-with→ privacy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 also in: transparency · privacy | concept_edges[3] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | machine learning —causes→ opacity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span says interpretability problems indicate opacity; causes is loose. also in: machine learning · opacity | concept_edges[4] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | implementation —part-of→ algorithm Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span reports LAY USAGE of 'algorithm' as including implementation; part-of is loose. also in: implementation · algorithm | concept_edges[5] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | data analytics —is-a→ practice Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 also in: data analytics · practice | concept_edges[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Three epistemic and two normative kinds of ethical concern arise from the use of algorithms. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | solving a problem at one level of the map leaves the other kinds untouched Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the concerns are interdependent, and two links were already present in the literature: bias with discrimination, and opacity with the attribution of responsibility Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Even strong correlations or causal knowledge may concern only populations, while actions are aimed at individuals. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | algorithm Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: algorithm | content_tags.definitions[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | transparency Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: transparency | content_tags.definitions[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | data analytics Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: data analytics | content_tags.definitions[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | actionable insights Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: actionable insights | content_tags.definitions[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | traceability Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: traceability | content_tags.definitions[4] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | accessibility Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: accessibility | content_tags.variables[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | comprehensibility Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: comprehensibility | content_tags.variables[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.