Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

"Public(s)-in-the-Loop": Facilitating Deliberation of Algorithmic Decisions in Contentious Public Policy Domains

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2204.10814 v1 pith:UZIKZXRV submitted 2022-04-22 cs.HC cs.AI

"Public(s)-in-the-Loop": Facilitating Deliberation of Algorithmic Decisions in Contentious Public Policy Domains

classification cs.HC cs.AI
keywords publiccontentiouspolicyalgorithmicapproachdecision-makingdeliberationdomains
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

This position paper offers a framework to think about how to better involve human influence in algorithmic decision-making of contentious public policy issues. Drawing from insights in communication literature, we introduce a "public(s)-in-the-loop" approach and enumerates three features that are central to this approach: publics as plural political entities, collective decision-making through deliberation, and the construction of publics. It explores how these features might advance our understanding of stakeholder participation in AI design in contentious public policy domains such as recidivism prediction. Finally, it sketches out part of a research agenda for the HCI community to support this work.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. AISPA: User-Centric System Prompt Auditing for Large Language Model Applications

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5

    A human-in-the-loop audit of system prompts from 88 commercial AI products finds protective instructions nearly universal yet incomplete, with ~40% of products containing at least one user-harmful directive.