算法的治理:选择和限制

Florian Saurwein, Natascha Just, M. Latzer
{"title":"算法的治理:选择和限制","authors":"Florian Saurwein, Natascha Just, M. Latzer","doi":"10.1108/INFO-05-2015-0025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose ‐ The purpose of this paper is to contribute to a better understanding of governance choice in the area of algorithmic selection. Algorithms on the Internet shape our daily lives and realities. They select information, automatically assign relevance to them and keep people from drowning in an information flood. The benefits of algorithms are accompanied by risks and governance challenges. Design/methodology/approach ‐ Based on empirical case analyses and a review of the literature, the paper chooses a risk-based governance approach. It identifies and categorizes applications of algorithmic selection and attendant risks. Then, it explores the range of institutional governance options anddiscussesappliedandproposedgovernancemeasuresforalgorithmicselectionandthelimitations of governance options. Findings ‐ Analysesrevealthattherearenoone-size-fits-allsolutionsforthegovernanceofalgorithms. Attention has to shift to multi-dimensional solutions and combinations of governance measures that mutually enable and complement each other. Limited knowledge about the developments of markets, risks and the effects of governance interventions hampers the choice of an adequate governance mix. Uncertainties call for risk and technology assessment to strengthen the foundations for evidence-based governance. Originality/value ‐ The paper furthers the understanding of governance choice in the area of algorithmicselectionwithastructuredsynopsisonrationales,optionsandlimitationsforthegovernance of algorithms. It provides a functional typology of applications of algorithmic selection, a comprehensive overview of the risks of algorithmic selection and a systematic discussion of governance options and its limitations.","PeriodicalId":88488,"journal":{"name":"Fruhneuzeit-Info","volume":"59 1","pages":"35-49"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"79","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Governance of algorithms: options and limitations\",\"authors\":\"Florian Saurwein, Natascha Just, M. Latzer\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/INFO-05-2015-0025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose ‐ The purpose of this paper is to contribute to a better understanding of governance choice in the area of algorithmic selection. Algorithms on the Internet shape our daily lives and realities. They select information, automatically assign relevance to them and keep people from drowning in an information flood. The benefits of algorithms are accompanied by risks and governance challenges. Design/methodology/approach ‐ Based on empirical case analyses and a review of the literature, the paper chooses a risk-based governance approach. It identifies and categorizes applications of algorithmic selection and attendant risks. Then, it explores the range of institutional governance options anddiscussesappliedandproposedgovernancemeasuresforalgorithmicselectionandthelimitations of governance options. Findings ‐ Analysesrevealthattherearenoone-size-fits-allsolutionsforthegovernanceofalgorithms. Attention has to shift to multi-dimensional solutions and combinations of governance measures that mutually enable and complement each other. Limited knowledge about the developments of markets, risks and the effects of governance interventions hampers the choice of an adequate governance mix. Uncertainties call for risk and technology assessment to strengthen the foundations for evidence-based governance. Originality/value ‐ The paper furthers the understanding of governance choice in the area of algorithmicselectionwithastructuredsynopsisonrationales,optionsandlimitationsforthegovernance of algorithms. It provides a functional typology of applications of algorithmic selection, a comprehensive overview of the risks of algorithmic selection and a systematic discussion of governance options and its limitations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":88488,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Fruhneuzeit-Info\",\"volume\":\"59 1\",\"pages\":\"35-49\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-07-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"79\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Fruhneuzeit-Info\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/INFO-05-2015-0025\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fruhneuzeit-Info","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/INFO-05-2015-0025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 79

摘要

目的-本文的目的是有助于更好地理解算法选择领域的治理选择。互联网上的算法塑造了我们的日常生活和现实。它们选择信息,自动分配相关性,防止人们淹没在信息洪流中。算法的好处伴随着风险和治理挑战。设计/方法论/方法‐基于实证案例分析和文献综述,本文选择了基于风险的治理方法。它识别和分类算法选择的应用和随之而来的风险。然后,探讨了机构治理选择的范围,并讨论了算法选择的应用和建议的治理措施以及治理选择的局限性。调查结果-分析表明,没有一种适合所有算法治理的解决方案。必须将注意力转移到多维解决方案和相互支持和互补的治理措施组合上。对市场发展、风险和治理干预效果的了解有限,妨碍了对适当治理组合的选择。不确定性要求进行风险和技术评估,以加强基于证据的治理的基础。原创性/价值-本文进一步理解了算法选择领域的治理选择,并对算法治理的基本原理、选择和限制进行了结构化的概述。它提供了算法选择应用的功能类型学,对算法选择风险的全面概述,以及对治理选择及其局限性的系统讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Governance of algorithms: options and limitations
Purpose ‐ The purpose of this paper is to contribute to a better understanding of governance choice in the area of algorithmic selection. Algorithms on the Internet shape our daily lives and realities. They select information, automatically assign relevance to them and keep people from drowning in an information flood. The benefits of algorithms are accompanied by risks and governance challenges. Design/methodology/approach ‐ Based on empirical case analyses and a review of the literature, the paper chooses a risk-based governance approach. It identifies and categorizes applications of algorithmic selection and attendant risks. Then, it explores the range of institutional governance options anddiscussesappliedandproposedgovernancemeasuresforalgorithmicselectionandthelimitations of governance options. Findings ‐ Analysesrevealthattherearenoone-size-fits-allsolutionsforthegovernanceofalgorithms. Attention has to shift to multi-dimensional solutions and combinations of governance measures that mutually enable and complement each other. Limited knowledge about the developments of markets, risks and the effects of governance interventions hampers the choice of an adequate governance mix. Uncertainties call for risk and technology assessment to strengthen the foundations for evidence-based governance. Originality/value ‐ The paper furthers the understanding of governance choice in the area of algorithmicselectionwithastructuredsynopsisonrationales,optionsandlimitationsforthegovernance of algorithms. It provides a functional typology of applications of algorithmic selection, a comprehensive overview of the risks of algorithmic selection and a systematic discussion of governance options and its limitations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Another breach in the wall: copyright territoriality in Europe and its progressive erosion on the grounds of competition law Content creation and distribution in the digital single market User generated content – users, community of users and firms: toward new sources of co-innovation? Shrinking core? Exploring the differential agenda setting power of traditional and personalized news media Copyright (and) Culture: the governance of audiovisual archives
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1