Algorithmic Risk Assessments Can Alter Human Decision-Making Processes in High-Stakes Government Contexts

Catalog evidence and recorded chart appearances. Inclusion is not an endorsement.

Source snapshot imported 2026-10-20. This is not a live feed. Source and contributions.

Evidence and limits

Finding: Risk advice changed how participants weighted risk, increasing detention disparity in one setting and reducing aid in another, despite potential predictive gains.

Impact: Strengthen value-shift and policy-outcome checks. Reject prediction accuracy as sufficient decision quality.

Boundary: Simulated government decisions do not prove field effects. Next: how can a workflow detect when advice changes the objective being optimized?

Flags: hypothetical decisions; policy-value sensitivity

Record State: Catalog review recorded; not a performance endorsement

What was reviewed: Structure and relevance screened; not a full evaluation

Inspect original source

Recorded chart appearances

  • 2026-10-13: position 18. Relevant to the recorded review topic (see source); Structure and relevance screened; not a full evaluation evidence
  • 2026-10-12: position 17. Relevant to the recorded review topic (see source); Structure and relevance screened; not a full evaluation evidence