Source author record

Simon Coghlan

Simon Coghlan appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

2works
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2021arXiv

Computer Science Communities: Who is Speaking, and Who is Listening to the Women? Using an Ethics of Care to Promote Diverse Voices

Those working on policy, digital ethics and governance often refer to issues in `computer science', that includes, but is not limited to, common subfields of Artificial Intelligence (AI), Computer Science (CS) Computer Security (InfoSec), Computer Vision (CV), Human Computer Interaction (HCI), Information Systems, (IS), Machine Learning (ML), Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Systems Architecture. Within this framework, this paper is a preliminary exploration of two hypotheses, namely 1) Each community has differing inclusion of minoritised groups (using women as our test case); and 2) Even where women exist in a community, they are not published representatively. Using data from 20,000 research records, totalling 503,318 names, preliminary data supported our hypothesis. We argue that ACM has an ethical duty of care to its community to increase these ratios, and to hold individual computing communities to account in order to do so, by providing incentives and a regular reporting system, in order to uphold its own Code.

preprint2020arXiv

Trust and Medical AI: The challenges we face and the expertise needed to overcome them

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly of tremendous interest in the medical field. However, failures of medical AI could have serious consequences for both clinical outcomes and the patient experience. These consequences could erode public trust in AI, which could in turn undermine trust in our healthcare institutions. This article makes two contributions. First, it describes the major conceptual, technical, and humanistic challenges in medical AI. Second, it proposes a solution that hinges on the education and accreditation of new expert groups who specialize in the development, verification, and operation of medical AI technologies. These groups will be required to maintain trust in our healthcare institutions.