Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data.

Beth Goldstein

dblp:03/3316 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2020
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Computing education · 100%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Trustworthy machine learning · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Computing education › ethics education
AI ethics education
0.412020
Assessing Ethical Thinking about AI · AAAI 2020
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
ethical AI
0.112020
Assessing Ethical Thinking about AI · AAAI 2020

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

validity evidence · 0.9assessment design · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2020 Assessing Ethical Thinking about AI
abstract
As is evidenced by the associated AI, Ethics and Society conference, we now take as given the need for ethics education in the AI and general CS curricula. The anticipated surge in AI ethics education will force the field to reckon with delineating and then evaluating learner outcomes to determine what is working and improve what is not. We argue for a more descriptive than normative focus of this ethics education, and propose the development of assessments that can measure descriptive ethical thinking about AI. Such an assessment tool for measuring ethical reasoning capacity in CS contexts must be designed to produce reliable scores for which there is established validity evidence concerning their interpretation and use.
Judy Goldsmith, Emanuelle Burton, David Dueber, Beth Goldstein, Shannon Sampson, Michael D. Toland
AAAI4
2020 Assessment of CS Students' Ethical Reasoning Skills
abstract
The national push for CS departments to teach students to think about ethical implications of their work raises critical questions about how we approach this pedagogically. In contrast to the typical assessments of CS ethical thinking, which have focused on a student's ability to operate successfully within one kind of normative paradigm, our research group advocates for teaching ethics as an ongoing practice that incorporates multiple normative frameworks and an emphasis on the descriptive element of ethical reflection. In this special session, we will discuss the differences between normative and descriptive ethics, practice describing ethical dilemmas, and work together on developing assessment capabilities for descriptive ethical thinking for CS.
Emanuelle Burton, David Dueber, Judy Goldsmith, Beth Goldstein, Shannon Sampson, Michael D. Toland
SIGCSE4
2009 Planning for success: The interdisciplinary approach to building Bayesian models
Alex Dekhtyar, Judy Goldsmith, Beth Goldstein, Krol Kevin Mathias, Cynthia Isenhour
Int. J. Approx. Reason.3