On the Responsibility for Uses of Downstream Software
Vol: 2019, Issue: 1
2019
- 523Usage
- 1Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage523
- Downloads341
- Abstract Views182
- Mentions1
- References1
- Wikipedia1
Conference Paper Description
In this paper we explore an issue that is different from whether developers are responsible for the direct impact of the software they write. We examine, instead, in what ways, and to what degree, developers are responsible for the way their software is used “downstream.” We review some key scholarship analyzing responsibility in computing ethics, including some recent work by Floridi. We use an adaptation of a mechanism developed by Floridi to argue that there are features of software that can be used as guides to better distinguish situations where a software developer might share in responsibility for the software’s downstream use from those in which the software developer likely does not share in that responsibility. We identify five such features and argue how they are useful in the model of responsibility that we develop. The features are: closeness to the hardware, risk, sensitivity of data, degree of control over or knowledge of the future population of users, and the nature of the software (general vs. special purpose).
Bibliographic Details
https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/cepe_proceedings/vol2019/iss1/3; https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/computersci_fac/128
https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/cepe_proceedings/vol2019/iss1/3; https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=cepe_proceedings; http://dx.doi.org/10.25884/7576-wd27; https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/computersci_fac/128; https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1130&context=computersci_fac; https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/cepe_proceedings/vol2019/iss1/3/; https://dx.doi.org/10.25884/7576-wd27
Old Dominion University
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know