From Digital Accountability to Accountable Digitality Through Needs-Aware Information Systems: The Case of Auditable Child-Welfare Judgments

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.11125v1
• Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2026 06:13:18 GMT
• Title: From Digital Accountability to Accountable Digitality Through Needs-Aware Information Systems: The Case of Auditable Child-Welfare Judgments
• Abstract summary: Digital accountability research asks how digital systems can be made transparent, explainable, auditable, contestable, and supportive of ongoing learning and improvement.<n>It theorizes this reversal as accountable digitality and specifies needs-aware information systems as the mediating mechanism.<n>The hard and paradigmatic case is child-welfare judgment, where best-interest procedures must protect children, preserve confidentiality, and respect judicial independence while enabling aggregate learning about needs, reasons, exceptions, and disparities.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Digital accountability research asks how digital systems can, among other aims, be made transparent, explainable, auditable, contestable, and supportive of ongoing learning and improvement. This paper reverses the question: how can digital transformation make established human institutions more accountable? It theorizes this reversal as accountable digitality and specifies needs-aware information systems as the mediating mechanism. The hard and paradigmatic case is child-welfare judgment, where best-interest procedures must protect children, preserve confidentiality, and respect judicial independence while enabling aggregate learning about needs, reasons, exceptions, and disparities. The case is used diagnostically and illustratively to derive and examine the design logic, not as empirical evidence or validation. Conceptual design-oriented analysis decomposes and recombines digital and legal accountability under child-rights constraints, deriving a canonical theory-to-design chain, contingent mechanisms, implications, and safeguards. It advances IS responsibility and ethics research by showing how privacy-preserving, co-created, needs-aware information systems can support institutional self-knowledge and auditable justice.

Related papers

• Towards Trustworthy Autonomous Robots: An Explainable AI-Based Decision Framework [0.0]
  TRACE (Transparent Reasoning Architecture for Credible Execution) is a decision framework that ensures every autonomous action can be traced back to sensor evidence.<n>TRACE is model-agnostic yet designed to integrate learning-based perception modules while preserving decision-level auditability.<n>We evaluate the framework using three objective metrics: Evidence Traceability (sensor-to-decision linkage), Decision Reconstructability (post-hoc analysis capability), and Temporal Continuity (audit trail completeness)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-02T17:44:25Z)
• A Computational Ethical Framework for Financial Digital Phenotyping for Mental Health [2.3101913925246045]
  We propose a computational ethical framework for AI-driven digital phenotyping system.<n>We model key ethical properties and verify them using the Z3 Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) solver.<n>This presents early research enabling continuous, machine-verifiable ethical checking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-27T11:19:52Z)
• The Role of Vehicles in Digital Forensic Investigations: A Structured Synthesis of Digital Vehicle Forensic Characteristics [0.0]
  Digital vehicle forensics (DVF) remains less mature than computer, mobile, and cloud forensics.<n>This article addresses this gap through a structured synthesis of academic literature, standards, and practitioner-oriented sources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-29T17:06:53Z)
• Cognitive Digital Twins: Ethical Risks and Governance for AI Systems That Model the Mind [12.629706595738755]
  We call cognitive digital twins (CDTs) a class of technologies that we call cognitive digital twins (CDTs)<n>CDTs combine cognitive inference with longitudinal representation, simulation, and proxy action.<n>We introduce a 5A governance framework organized around authority, autonomy, access and control, accountability, and availability.<n>We propose requirements for high-risk CDTs that strengthen consent, purpose limitation, validity, traceability, contestation, independent review, and model retirement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-22T09:40:09Z)
• AI-Assisted Systematization for Evaluating GenAI Systems [45.6388922756291]
  We develop two AI-assisted systematizers to produce concept specs for two concepts.<n>We evaluate resulting concept specs on content validity and information recoverability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-25T16:19:44Z)
• AI Identification: An Integrated Framework for Sustainable Governance in Digital Enterprises [3.2625979527355784]
  In digitally transformed enterprises, long-term sustainability depends on transparent, accountable, and lifecycle-governed AI systems.<n>This study proposes a conceptual and architectural framework for AI identification, combining technical and governance mechanisms.<n>The framework integrates five components: model fingerprinting, cryptographic hashing, blockchain-based registration, zero-knowledge proof (ZKP)-based proof of possession, and post-deployment structural change screening.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-12T05:59:47Z)
• When Can You Trust Your Explanations? A Robustness Analysis on Feature Importances [42.36530107262305]
  robustness of explanations plays a central role in ensuring trust in both the system and the provided explanation.<n>We propose a novel approach to analyse the robustness of neural network explanations to non-adversarial perturbations.<n>We additionally present an ensemble method to aggregate various explanations, showing how merging explanations can be beneficial for both understanding the model's decision and evaluating the robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T14:17:57Z)
• Mathematical Algorithm Design for Deep Learning under Societal and Judicial Constraints: The Algorithmic Transparency Requirement [65.26723285209853]
  We derive a framework to analyze whether a transparent implementation in a computing model is feasible. Based on previous results, we find that Blum-Shub-Smale Machines have the potential to establish trustworthy solvers for inverse problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-18T15:32:38Z)
• Causal Fairness Analysis [68.12191782657437]
  We introduce a framework for understanding, modeling, and possibly solving issues of fairness in decision-making settings. The main insight of our approach will be to link the quantification of the disparities present on the observed data with the underlying, and often unobserved, collection of causal mechanisms. Our effort culminates in the Fairness Map, which is the first systematic attempt to organize and explain the relationship between different criteria found in the literature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-23T01:06:34Z)
• Exploring the Trade-off between Plausibility, Change Intensity and Adversarial Power in Counterfactual Explanations using Multi-objective Optimization [73.89239820192894]
  We argue that automated counterfactual generation should regard several aspects of the produced adversarial instances. We present a novel framework for the generation of counterfactual examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-20T15:02:53Z)
• Synthetic Disinformation Attacks on Automated Fact Verification Systems [53.011635547834025]
  We explore the sensitivity of automated fact-checkers to synthetic adversarial evidence in two simulated settings. We show that these systems suffer significant performance drops against these attacks. We discuss the growing threat of modern NLG systems as generators of disinformation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-18T19:01:01Z)
• Uncertainty as a Form of Transparency: Measuring, Communicating, and Using Uncertainty [66.17147341354577]
  We argue for considering a complementary form of transparency by estimating and communicating the uncertainty associated with model predictions. We describe how uncertainty can be used to mitigate model unfairness, augment decision-making, and build trustworthy systems. This work constitutes an interdisciplinary review drawn from literature spanning machine learning, visualization/HCI, design, decision-making, and fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-15T17:26:14Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.