- 谁在运行
- NHS England
- 它会影响人们吗?
- 会。它可能协助作出与个人有关的决定,例如能否获得服务、名额、款项或许可。
- 可能的权利影响: 直接决定或准入
我们了解多少?
来源是信息所依据的公开网页或文件。标记说明记录有多完整,不代表系统是否良好或安全。缺少信息不等于缺少保护措施。
来源与延伸阅读
- NHS England: NHS.UK Reviews Automoderation Tool / GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records / 2024-07-23
- GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records - official inventory / GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records
可选详情完整记录与详情
界面和说明指南已经翻译。记录名称与描述、引文、详细编辑说明和链接的公共文件保留发布时的语言,避免悄然改变证据。
它做什么
The NHS.UK website receives thousands of reviews each year about NHS services. This tool automates a previously manual process by using natural language processing (NLP) techniques to improve efficiency, scalability, and user satisfaction.
如果它影响到个人
This tool is specifically designed to automate the moderation of NHS.UK reviews in line with the existing moderation policy, which includes nine distinct rules that were each handled individually. To detect rule violations, a rule-based approach is employed for some rules, while machine learning (ML) models have been trained for others. Certain rule-based solutions could potentially be used in other contexts, such as identifying emails or detecting profanity. However, others are tailored to the specific definiti...
For moderation rules that allow users to disagree with the algorithm's decision, they can send the review to a human moderator for review. The user will then receive an email stating that their review has been published or explaining how to change it to meet the review policy. If a review breaks policy but does not get caught by the moderation rules, service providers can report the comment directly to a human mod...
The datasets captured the review title and comment along with the care provider details such as organisation type and name. All comments had labels indicating which (if any) moderation rules had been broken, assigned either by human labelling, augmentation or generation.
来源与延伸阅读
来源是支撑某项说法的公共文件。请直接打开,核实其内容和发布者。
确定性代码从链接的公开记录映射字段,没有生成式模型撰写此文本。
待核事实
- 谁在运行
- NHS England
- 生活领域
- 公共部门
- 证据级别
- 来源支持
- 注释
- 2
- 更新于
- 2年前
分数安排工作,不评价人。
涉及权利的敏感用途、缺少来源、未回答的问责问题和陈旧证据会提高审查优先级;有力的官方文件会降低它。该分数不是对安全、公平或合法性的裁决。
空白字段表示所附公共来源没有给出答案。覆盖范围并不均衡,公开文件不能证明实际表现,证书也有明确适用边界。
以前的版本
- Imported14天前较充分Imported from GOV.UK Algorithmic Transparency Records.
帮助核查这条记录。
添加公共来源、质疑某项说法,或指出缺少联系人工的途径。
提交的姓名、邮箱、说明、来源或更正仅用于核实记录和防止滥用,不会自动公开。