- Who runs it
- Environmental Protection Agency
- Can it affect people?
- Yes. It may support a decision about a person, such as access to a service, place, payment, or permit.
- Possible rights impact: Direct decision or access
How much do we know?
A source is a published page or document behind a claim. The label measures what is documented, not whether a system is good or safe. Missing information does not prove that a safeguard is missing.
Sources and further reading
- 2025 U.S. Federal Agency AI Use Case Inventory / U.S. Federal Agency AI Use Case Inventory / 2026-04-13
optional detailFull record and details
The interface and explanatory guides are translated. Record names, record descriptions, quotations, detailed editorial notes, and linked public documents stay in their published language so evidence is not silently changed.
What it does
The Agency conducts reviews of scientific literature in many contexts, including periodic revision of NAAQS as mandated by the Clean Air Act, other standards, but also one-time assessments of published evidence. Given the scope of some of those reviews and the very large of peer-reviewed articles to consider, a system was required to rank and prioritize them for faster screening, based on past reviews and ongoing expert criteria.
If this affects someone
AI is simple machine learning that trains anew for each literature screening project, using user decisions to select relevant articles and deselect irrelevant ones. Users can also provide a warmup set of past relevant articles on a per-project basis.
Sources and further reading
First indexed from U.S. Federal Agency AI Use Case Inventory on 2026-11-02. Only usable fields from the public record are shown; missing answers remain blank.
Fields were mapped from the linked public record by deterministic code. No generative model wrote this text.
Facts to check
- Who runs it
- Environmental Protection Agency
- Life area
- Public sector
- Proof level
- Source-backed
- Footnotes
- 1
- updated
- 7 months ago
The score orders work, not people.
Review priority rises for rights-sensitive uses, missing sources, unanswered accountability fields, and old evidence. Strong official documentation lowers it. The score is not a verdict on safety, fairness, or legality.
A missing field means the attached public sources did not answer it. Coverage is uneven, publication does not prove performance, and a certificate has a defined boundary.
Previous versions
- Imported8 hours agoPartialImported from U.S. Federal Agency AI Use Case Inventory.
Help check this record.
Add a public source, challenge a claim, or point out a missing way to reach a person.
A submitted name, email, description, source, or correction is used only to verify the record and prevent abuse. It is not published automatically.