Refine
Year of publication
Institute
- Fachbereich Wirtschaftswissenschaften (1121) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- no (1121) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (699)
- Book (214)
- Part of a Book (73)
- Conference Proceeding (55)
- Other (44)
- Review (13)
- Working Paper (7)
- Contribution to a Periodical (5)
- Doctoral Thesis (5)
- Report (4)
Keywords
- Datenschutz (5)
- Datenschutzgrundverordnung (3)
- Datenschutzrecht (2)
- EU-Datenschutzgrundverordnung (2)
- Internationales Recht / Europarecht (2)
- rebound-effect (2)
- sustainability (2)
- 3. EU Legislativpaket (1)
- Active learning (1)
- Atomausstieg (1)
Haftung im Vereinsrecht
(2008)
Extracting workflow nets from textual descriptions can be used to simplify guidelines or formalize textual descriptions of formal processes like business processes and algorithms. The task of manually extracting processes, however, requires domain expertise and effort. While automatic process model extraction is desirable, annotating texts with formalized process models is expensive. Therefore, there are only a few machine-learning-based extraction approaches. Rule-based approaches, in turn, require domain specificity to work well and can rarely distinguish relevant and irrelevant information in textual descriptions. In this paper, we present GUIDO, a hybrid approach to the process model extraction task that first, classifies sentences regarding their relevance to the process model, using a BERT-based sentence classifier, and second, extracts a process model from the sentences classified as relevant, using dependency parsing. The presented approach achieves significantly better resul ts than a pure rule-based approach. GUIDO achieves an average behavioral similarity score of 0.93. Still, in comparison to purely machine-learning-based approaches, the annotation costs stay low.
AI-based systems are nearing ubiquity not only in everyday low-stakes activities but also in medical procedures. To protect patients and physicians alike, explainability requirements have been proposed for the operation of AI-based decision support systems (AI-DSS), which adds hurdles to the productive use of AI in clinical contexts. This raises two questions: Who decides these requirements? And how should access to AI-DSS be provided to communities that reject these standards (particularly when such communities are expert-scarce)? This chapter investigates a dilemma that emerges from the implementation of global AI governance. While rejecting global AI governance limits the ability to help communities in need, global AI governance risks undermining and subjecting health-insecure communities to the force of the neo-colonial world order. For this, this chapter first surveys the current landscape of AI governance and introduces the approach of relational egalitarianism as key to (global health) justice. To discuss the two horns of the referred dilemma, the core power imbalances faced by health-insecure collectives (HICs) are examined. The chapter argues that only strong demands of a dual strategy towards health-secure collectives can both remedy the immediate needs of HICs and enable them to become healthcare independent.