Artificial intelligence for science – adoption trends and future development pathways

Hajkowicz, Stefan and Naughtin, Claire and Sanderson, Conrad and Schleiger, Emma and Karimi, Sarvnaz and Bratanova, Alexandra and Bednarz, Tomasz (2022): Artificial intelligence for science – adoption trends and future development pathways. Published in:

Abstract

This paper aims to inform researchers and research organisations within the spheres of government, industry, community and academia seeking to develop improved AI capabilities. The paper is focused on the use of AI for science, and it describes AI adoption trends in the physical, natural and social science fields. Using a bibliometric analysis of peer-reviewed publishing trends over 63 years (1960–2022), the paper demonstrates a surge in AI adoption across all fields over the past several years. The paper examines future development pathways and explores implications for science organisations.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Artificial intelligence; machine learning; science; AI capabilities; bibliometric analysis; Australia
• Subjects: O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O32 - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O33 - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences ; Diffusion Processes; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O38 - Government Policy

References

1. Crew, B. (2020) Google Scholar reveals its most influential papers for 2020 - Artificial intelligence papers amass citations more than any other research topic. Nature News (13 July). London.

2. OECD (2022) OECD Statistics. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Statistics Website (https://stats.oecd.org/) accessed 11 March 2022. Paris.

3. OECD (2021) Database of national AI policies. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Artificial Intelligence Policy Observatory (website accessed on 13/01/2022). Paris.

4. Van Roy, V., et al. (2021) AI Watch - National strategies on Artificial Intelligence: A European perspective, 2021 edition. European Comission. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

5. Malcolm, E. (2021) Flexible solar panels: new stretch of the imagination. CSIROscope (18 May 2021). Canberra.

6. Bayat, A., et al. (2020) VariantSpark: Cloud-based machine learning for association study of complex phenotype and large-scale genomic data. GigaScience 9(8): 1-12.

7. Roberts, M., et al. (2021) Common pitfalls and recommendations for using machine learning to detect and prognosticate for COVID-19 using chest radiographs and CT scans. Nature Machine Intelligence 3(3): 199-217.

8. Nicholson, K. and A. Slonim (2022) Artificial intelligence: your questions answered. Australian Strategic Policy Institute. Australia.

9. UKRI (2022) Strategic Priorities Fund - Artificial intellgience - AI and Data Science for Science, Engineering, Health and Government. United Kingdom Research and Innovation, United Kingdom Government (website accessed 4 March 2022, https://www.ukri.org/our-work/ our-main-funds/strategic-priorities-fund/). London.

10. AI4SD (2021) Artificial Intelligence and Augmented Intelligence for Automated Investigations for Scientific Discovery (AI4SD). University of Southampton (https://www. ai3sd.org, website accessed 7 March 2022). United Kingdom.

11. Nolan, A. (2021) Artificial intelligence and the future of science. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Artificial Intelligence Policy Observatory (25 October). Paris.

12. Miyagawa, T. and T. Ishikawa (2019) On the Decline of R&D Efficiency (RIETI Discussion Paper Series 19-E-052). Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry. Japan.

13. Boeing, P. and P. Hünermund (2020) A global decline in research productivity? Evidence from China and Germany. Economics Letters 197: 1-4.

14. Zhang, D., et al. (2021) The AI Index 2021 Annual Report. AI Index Steering Committee, Human-Centered AI Institute, Stanford University. Stanford CA, United States.

15. Littman, M., et al. (2021) Gathering Strength, Gathering Storms: The One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence (AI100) Stanford University (http://ai100.stanford.edu/2021-report, website accessed 4 March 2022). California, United States.

16. Nichols, J., et al. (2019) Artificial intelligence for science. Argonne National Laboratory. Lemont, Illinois, United States.

17. Nicholson, K. and A. Slonim (2022) Special Report - Artificial intelligence: Your questions answered. The University of Adelaide Australian Institute for Machine Learning, Australian Strategic Policy Research Institute. Adelaide.

18. Gil, Y. and A. Selman (2019) A 20-Year Community Roadmap for Artificial Intelligence Research in the US. Computing Community Consortium (CCC) and Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). Washington DC, United States.

19. Kaul, V., S. Enslin, and S.A. Gross (2020) History of artificial intelligence in medicine. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 92(4): 807-812.

20. Haenlein, M. and A. Kaplan (2019) A Brief History of Artificial Intelligence: On the Past, Present, and Future of Artificial Intelligence. California Management Review 61(4): 5-14.

21. Buchanan, B.G. (2005) A (Very) Brief History of Artificial Intelligence. AI Magazine 26(4): 53.

22. Flasiński, M. (2016) History of Artificial Intelligence, in Introduction to Artificial Intelligence, M. Flasiński, Editor, Springer International Publishing: London.

23. Wikipedia (2022) History of artificial intelligence. Wikipedia - The free encyclopedia (website accessed 22 Jan 2022). San Francisco.

24. McCulloch, W.S. and W. Pitts (1943) A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity. The bulletin of mathematical biophysics 5(4): 115-133.

25. Minksy, M. and D. Edmonds (1954) Stochastic Neural Analogue Reinforcement Calculator. Princeton University. United States.

26. Turing, A. (1950) Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind - A quarterly review of psychology and philosophy 59(236): 433-460.

27. Warwick, K. and H. Shah (2016) Can machines think? A report on Turing test experiments at the Royal Society. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 28(6): 989-1007.

28. McCarthy, J. (2006) The Dartmouth Workshop--as planned and as it happened. Stanford University (website accessed 25 Jan 2022). United States.

29. Agar, J.O.N. (2020) What is science for? The Lighthill report on artificial intelligence reinterpreted. The British Journal for the History of Science 53(3): 289-310.

30. Odagiri, H., Y. Nakamura, and M. Shibuya (1997) Research consortia as a vehicle for basic research: The case of a fifth generation computer project in Japan. Research Policy 26(2): 191-207.

31. Newquist, H. (2020) The Brain Makers: The History of Artificial Intelligence – Genius, Ego, And Greed In The Quest For Machines That Think. The Relayer Group. New York.

32. lens.org (2022) Search, analyse and manage patent and scholarly data - Lens serves global patent and scholarly knowledge as a public good to inform science and technology enabled problem solving. The Lens Website by Cambia (www.lens.org) accessed on 8 March 2022. Brisbane, Australia.

33. Jefferson, O.A., et al. (2021) Mapping CRISPR-Cas9 public and commercial innovation using The Lens institutional toolkit. Transgenic Research 30(4): 585-599.

34. Dutton, T., B. Barron, and G. Boskovic (2018) Building an AI world. Report on national and regional AI strategies. Canadian Institute for Advanced Research. Toronto, Canada.

35. Hajkowicz, S. et al (2019) Artificial Intelligence: Solving problems, growing the economy and improving our quality of life. CSIRO. Brisbane, Australia.

36. IDC (2021) IDC Forecasts Companies to Spend Almost $342 Billion on AI Solutions in 2021 (Media Release 4 August 2021). International Data Corporation. Needham, MA, United States.

37. OECD (2021) OECD Science, Technology and R&D Statistics: Revealed technology advantage in selected fields. OECD Science, Technology and R&D Statistics (database). Paris.

38. Jain, S. (2018) An Overview of Regularization Techniques in Deep Learning (with Python code). Analytics Vidhya. Gurugram, India.

39. Zhang, Z. (2018) Improved Adam Optimizer for Deep Neural Networks. 2018 IEEE/ACM 26th International Symposium on Quality of Service (IWQoS). DOI: 10.1109/IWQoS.2018.8624183.

40. Mukkamala, M.C. and M. Hein, Variants of RMSProp and Adagrad with Logarithmic Regret Bounds, in Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, P. Doina and T. Yee Whye, Editors. 2017, PMLR: Proceedings of Machine Learning Research. p. 2545--2553.

41. Bottou, L. (2012) Stochastic Gradient Descent Tricks, in Neural Networks: Tricks of the Trade: Second Edition, G. Montavon, G.B. Orr, and K.-R. Müller, Editors, Springer Berlin Heidelberg: Berlin, Heidelberg.

42. AAS (2022) What is science? (Reviewed by Pauline Ladiges and Oliver Mayo). The Australian Academy of Science (website accessed 4 February 2022). Canberra.

43. UNESCO (2017) Measuring Scientific and Technological Services (STS): Draft Paper for Consultation. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, Institute for Statistics. Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

44. UIS (2022) The UNESCO Institute for Statistics UIS.Stat. United Nations Economic and Social Council website. Paris, France.

45. PwC (2019) The 2018 global innovation 1000 study. PwC. London, UK.

46. Bajpai, P. (2021) Which companies spend the most in research and development? NASDAQ News. New York City.

47. Scopus (2021) What are Scopus subject area categories and ASJC codes? Elsevier Website (accessed on 3 March 2022, last updated 29 July 2021). Amsterdam, Netherlands.

48. Gao, J., et al. (2021) Potentially long-lasting effects of the pandemic on scientists. Nature Communications 12(1): 6188.

49. Riccaboni, M. and L. Verginer (2022) The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientific research in the life sciences. PLOS ONE 17(2): e0263001.

50. arXiv (2022) arXiv usage statistics. arXiv website (accessed 1 July 2022), Cornell University. United States.

51. PWC (2022) Trends - Paper Implementations grouped by framework. Papers With Code Website (https://paperswithcode.com/trends). United States.

52. Schwartz, S.J. and B.L. Zamboanga (2009) The Peer-Review and Editorial System: Ways to Fix Something That Might Be Broken. Perspectives on Psychological Science 4(1): 54-61.

53. ABS (2017) The Australian National Census for 2016 - Data accessed through the ABS table builder professional. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Canberra.

54. ABS (2021) Research and experimental development, businesses, Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Canberra, Australia.

55. Parham, D. (2009) Empirical Analysis of the Effects of R&D on Productivity - Implications for productivity measurement. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Paris.

56. Bloom, N., et al. (2020) Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find? American Economic Review 110(4): 1104-44.

57. Towse, A., et al. (2017) Time for a change in how new antibiotics are reimbursed: Development of an insurance framework for funding new antibiotics based on a policy of risk mitigation. Health Policy 121(10): 1025-1030.

58. Kraus, C.N. (2008) Low hanging fruit ininfectious disease drug development. Current Opinion in Microbiology 11(5): 434-438.

59. ITER (2022) Advantages of fusion - The next decades are crucially important to putting the world on a path of reduced greenhouse gas emissions. International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (website accessed 6 April 2022). France.

60. CCFE (2022) Fusion energy record demonstrates powerplant future (9 February). Culham Centre for Fusion Energy (CCFE), United Kingdom Energy Authority (website accessed 6 April 2022). Oxfordshire, United Kingdom.

61. Degrave, J., et al. (2022) Magnetic control of tokamak plasmas through deep reinforcement learning. Nature 602(7897): 414-419.

62. Katwala, A. (2022) DeepMind Has Trained an AI to Control Nuclear Fusion - The Google-backed firm taught a reinforcement learning algorithm to control the fiery plasma inside a tokamak nuclear fusion reactor. Wired Magazine (16 Feb 2022). San Francisco, United States.

63. Kitano, H. (2021) Nobel Turing Challenge: creating the engine for scientific discovery. npj Systems Biology and Applications 7(1): 29.

64. Gil, Y., R. King, and H. Kitano (2020) Posing an AI Scientist Grand Challenge: Artificial Intelligence Systems Capable of Nobel-Quality Discoveries (Workshop Summary developed by Workshop Attendees). The Alan Turing Institute (February 2020). London.

65. ATI (2022) The Turing AI scientist grand challenge - Developing AI systems capable of making Nobel quality scientific discoveries highly autonomously at a level comparable, and possibly superior, to the best human scientists by 2050. The Alan Turing Institute, Research Projects (website accessed 6 April 2022). London.

66. Kelling, S., et al. (2009) Data-intensive Science: A New Paradigm for Biodiversity Studies. BioScience 59(7): 613-620.

67. Leonelli, S. (2012) Classificatory Theory in Data-intensive Science: The Case of Open Biomedical Ontologies. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 26(1): 47-65.

68. Ahrens, J., et al. (2011) Data-Intensive Science in the US DOE: Case Studies and Future Challenges. Computing in Science & Engineering 13(6): 14-24.

69. Pietsch, W. (2015) Aspects of Theory-Ladenness in Data-Intensive Science. Philosophy of Science 82(5): 905-916.

70. Nikam, V.B. and B.B. Meshram (2013) Modeling Rainfall Prediction Using Data Mining Method: A Bayesian Approach. Fifth International Conference on Computational Intelligence, Modelling and Simulation. DOI: 10.1109/CIMSim.2013.29.

71. Hassani, H. and E.S. Silva (2015) Forecasting with Big Data: A Review. Annals of Data Science 2(1): 5-19.

72. Callebaut, W. (2012) Scientific perspectivism: A philosopher of science’s response to the challenge of big data biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43(1): 69-80.

73. Cowls, J. and R. Schroeder (2015) Causation, Correlation, and Big Data in Social Science Research. Policy & Internet 7(4): 447-472.

74. Elragal, A. and R. Klischewski (2017) Theory-driven or process-driven prediction? Epistemological challenges of big data analytics. Journal of Big Data 4(1): 19.

75. Senior, A.W., et al. (2020) Improved protein structure prediction using potentials from deep learning. Nature 577(7792): 706-710.

76. DeepMind (2020) AlphaFold: Using AI for scientific discovery. Deepmind (https://deepmind. com) website accessed 27 April 2022. London.

77. Jumper, J., et al. (2021) Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature 596(7873): 583-589.

78. AlphaFold and EMBL-EBI, AlphaFold Protein Structure Database, A.a. EMBL-EBI, Editor. 2022: Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom.

79. iNaturalist (2021) A Community for Naturalists. iNaturalist Web page accessed 24 January 2022. Australia.

80. Van Horn, G., et al. (2018) The inaturalist species classification and detection dataset. Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition.

81. Ceccaroni, L., et al. (2019) Opportunities and risks for citizen science in the age of artificial intelligence. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 4(1).

82. McClure, E.C., et al. (2020) Artificial Intelligence Meets Citizen Science to Supercharge Ecological Monitoring. Patterns 1(7): https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2020.100109.

83. Open Science Collaboration (2015) Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349(6251): doi:10.1126/science.aac4716.

84. Camerer, C.F., et al. (2016) Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics. Science 351(6280): 1433-1436.

85. Prinz, F., T. Schlange, and K. Asadullah (2011) Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 10(9): 712-712.

86. Yang, Y., W. Youyou, and B. Uzzi (2020) Estimating the deep replicability of scientific findings using human and artificial intelligence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117(20): 10762-10768.

87. Stach, E., et al. (2021) Autonomous experimentation systems for materials development: A community perspective. Matter 4(9): 2702-2726.

88. Nikolaev, P., et al. (2016) Autonomy in materials research: a case study in carbon nanotube growth. npj Computational Materials 2(1): 16031.

89. Castelvecchi, D. (2021) DeepMind’s AI helps untangle the mathematics of knots. Nature 600(7888): 202-202.

90. Davies, A., et al. (2021) Advancing mathematics by guiding human intuition with AI. Nature 600(7887): 70-74.

91. Pascal, L., et al. (2020) A Shiny r app to solve the problem of when to stop managing or surveying species under imperfect detection. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 11(12): 1707-1715.

92. Torney, C.J., et al. (2019) A comparison of deep learning and citizen science techniques for counting wildlife in aerial survey images. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 10(6): 779-787.

93. Norouzzadeh, M.S., et al. (2018) Automatically identifying, counting, and describing wild animals in camera-trap images with deep learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115(25): E5716-E5725.

94. Wilhite, A.W. and E.A. Fong (2012) Coercive Citation in Academic Publishing. Science 335(6068): 542-543.

95. Seglen, P.O. (1997) Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 314(7079): 498-502.

96. Weis, J.W. and J.M. Jacobson (2021) Learning on knowledge graph dynamics provides an early warning of impactful research. Nature Biotechnology 39(10): 1300-1307.

97. Savage, N. (2019) How AI and neuroscience drive each other forwards. Nature 571(7766): S15-S15.

98. Yamins, D.L.K., et al. (2014) Performance-optimized hierarchical models predict neural responses in higher visual cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(23): 8619-8624.

99. Kell, A.J.E., et al. (2018) A Task-Optimized Neural Network Replicates Human Auditory Behavior, Predicts Brain Responses, and Reveals a Cortical Processing Hierarchy. Neuron 98(3): 630-644.

100. Rajpurkar, P., et al. (2022) AI in health and medicine. Nature Medicine (28): 31–38.

101. Stokes, J.M., et al. (2020) A Deep Learning Approach to Antibiotic Discovery. Cell 180(4): 688-702.

102. RAR (2014) Antimicrobial Resistance: Tackling a Crisis for the Health and Wealth of Nations. Review on Antimicrobial Resistance, United Kingdom Government. London.

103. Brown, E.D. and G.D. Wright (2016) Antibacterial drug discovery in the resistance era. Nature 529(7586): 336-343.

104. Zhavoronkov, A., et al. (2019) Deep learning enables rapid identification of potent DDR1 kinase inhibitors. Nature Biotechnology 37(9): 1038-1040.

105. VoPham, T., et al. (2018) Emerging trends in geospatial artificial intelligence (geoAI): potential applications for environmental epidemiology. Environmental Health 17(1): 40.

106. Lin, Y., et al. (2017) Mining public datasets for modeling intra-city PM2. 5 concentrations at a fine spatial resolution. Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGSPATIAL international conference on advances in geographic information systems.

107. Checco, A., et al. (2021) AI-assisted peer review. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 8(1): 25.

108. Frontiers (2020) Artificial Intelligence to help meet global demand for high-quality, objective peer-review in publishing. Frontiers Science News. Lausanne, Switzerland.

109. Vincent, J. (2022) A new use for AI: Summarizing scientific research for seven-year-olds. The Verge (18 January 2022). Washington, District of Columbia, United States.

110. Bickler, S.H. (2021) Machine Learning Arrives in Archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Practice 9(2): 186-191.

111. Chetouani, A., et al. (2020) Classification of engraved pottery sherds mixing deep-learning features by compact bilinear pooling. Pattern Recognition Letters 131: 1-7.

112. Romanengo, C., S. Biasotti, and B. Falcidieno (2020) Recognising decorations in archaeological finds through the analysis of characteristic curves on 3D models. Pattern Recognition Letters 131: 405-412.

113. Bonhage, A., et al. (2021) A modified Mask region-based convolutional neural network approach for the automated detection of archaeological sites on high-resolution light detection and ranging-derived digital elevation models in the North German Lowland. Archaeological Prospection 28(2): 177-186.

114. Davis, D.S., R.J. DiNapoli, and K. Douglass (2020) Integrating Point Process Models, Evolutionary Ecology and Traditional Knowledge Improves Landscape Archaeology—A Case from Southwest Madagascar. Geosciences 10(287): 1-25.

115. Mirhoseini, A., et al. (2021) A graph placement methodology for fast chip design. Nature 594(7862): 207-212.

116. Ellegaard, O. and J.A. Wallin (2015) The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics 105(3): 1809-1831.

117. Hu, Q., S. Khosa, and N. Kapucu (2015) The Intellectual Structure of Empirical Network Research in Public Administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 26(4): 593-612.

118. Donthu, N., et al. (2021) How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research 133: 285-296.

119. Wang, K., et al. (2020) Microsoft Academic Graph: When experts are not enough. Quantitative Science Studies 1(1): 396-413.

120. Frank, M.R., et al. (2019) The evolution of citation graphs in artificial intelligence research. Nature Machine Intelligence 1(2): 79-85.

121. Liu, N., P. Shapira, and X. Yue (2021) Tracking developments in artificial intelligence research: constructing and applying a new search strategy. Scientometrics 126(4): 3153-3192.

122. Baruffaldi, S., et al. (2020) Identifying and measuring developments in artificial intelligence. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Paris.

123. Penfold, R. (2020) Using the Lens Database for Staff Publications. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA 108(2): 341-344.

124. Jefferson, O.A., et al. (2021) Mapping innovation trajectories on SARS-CoV-2 and its variants. Nature Biotechnology 39(4): 401-403.

125. Geroski, P.A. (2000) Models of technology diffusion. Research Policy 29(4): 603-625.

126. Reuther, A., et al. (2020) Survey of Machine Learning Accelerators. 2020 IEEE High Performance Extreme Computing Conference (HPEC). DOI: 10.1109/HPEC43674.2020.9286149.

127. Arute, F., et al. (2019) Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature 574(7779): 505-510.

128. Korot, E., et al. (2021) Code-free deep learning for multi-modality medical image classification. Nature Machine Intelligence 3(4): 288-298.

129. Microsoft (2022) Artificial Intelligence sample for Power BI: Take a tour (2 April 2022). Microsoft Corporation. Seattle, United States.

130. Microsoft (2018) Bringing AI to Excel—4 new features announced today at Ignite. Microsoft Corporation. Seattle, United States.

131. Martin, M. (2022) Fifteen best Github alternatives in 2022. Guru99 Blog. Wilmington, Delaware, United States of America.

132. Bojer, C.S. and J.P. Meldgaard (2021) Kaggle forecasting competitions: An overlooked learning opportunity. International Journal of Forecasting 37(2): 587-603.

133. Mishkin, D., N. Sergievskiy, and J. Matas (2017) Systematic evaluation of convolution neural network advances on the Imagenet. Computer Vision and Image Understanding 161: 11-19.

134. Gartner (2021) Gartner Forecasts Worldwide Public Cloud End-User Spending to Grow 23% in 2021. Gartner Newsroom - Press Release 21 April 2021. Stamford, Connecticut, United States.

135. ReportLinker (2021) Cloud Computing Market by Service, Deployment Model, Organization Size, Vertical And Region - Global Forecast to 2026. ReportLinker- Market Ingelligence Platform (https://ai.reportlinker.com/) Lyon, France.

136. Drake, N. (2014) Cloud computing beckons scientists. Nature 509(7502): 543-544.

137. Langmead, B. and A. Nellore (2018) Cloud computing for genomic data analysis and collaboration. Nature Reviews Genetics 19(4): 208-219.

138. Wynants, L., et al. (2020) Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19: systematic review and critical appraisal. 369: m1328.

139. Floridi, L. (2019) What the Near Future of Artificial Intelligence Could Be. Philosophy & Technology 32(1): 1-15.

140. De Fauw, J., et al. (2018) Clinically applicable deep learning for diagnosis and referral in retinal disease. Nature Medicine 24(9): 1342-1350.

141. Ramarao-Milne, P., et al. (2022) Data-driven platform for identifying variants of interest in COVID-19 virus. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal 20: 2942-2950.

142. Bauer, D.C., et al. (2021) Interoperable medical data: The missing link for understanding COVID-19. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases 68(4): 1753-1760.

143. Kiron, D. (2016) Lessons from Becoming a Data-Driven Organization. MIT Sloan Management Review (18 October 2016). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

144. Anderson, C. (2015) Creating a data-driven organisation. O’Rielly Media Inc. Sebastopol, California.

145. OECD (2022) OECD.AI Policy Observatory: AI courses in English by educational level. OECD. AI Policy Observatory. Paris, France.

146. Nature Index (2020) Top 100 academic institutions in artificial intelligence. Nature Index 2020. London.

147. University of Adelaide (2020) Australian Institute for Machine Learning. Annual report 2020. University of Adelaide. Adelaide.

148. DandoloPartners (2020) Evaluation of early learning and schools initiatives in the National Innovation and Science Agenda. Report to the Department of Education. Department of Education, Australian Government. Canberra.

149. Toney, A. and M. Flagg (2020) U.S. Demand for AI-Related Talent. Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET). Washington D.C.

150. Mason, C., et al. (2022) Australian Skills Dashboard. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Brisbane.

151. OECD (2022) Live data: Cross-country AI skills penetration (accessed on 27/01/2022). Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, AI Policy Observatory. Paris.

152. MacroPolo (2022) The Global AI Talent Tracker. MacroPolo (https://macropolo.org/digital-projects/ the-global-ai-talent-tracker). Chicago.

153. DESE (2022) Award Course Completions Time Series. Department of Education, Skills and Employment, Australian Government. Canberra.

154. Hajkowicz, S., Reeson, A., Rudd, L., Bratanova, A., Hodgers, L., Mason, C., Boughen, N. (2016) Tomorrow’s Digitally Enabled Workforce: Megatrends and scenarios for jobs and employment in Australia over the coming twenty years. CSIRO. Brisbane, Australia.

155. Zhang, B. and A. Dafoe, Artificial intelligence: American attitudes and trends. 2019, University of Oxford: Oxford, United Kingdom.

156. Gillespie, N., S. Lockey, and C. Curtis (2021) Trust in artificial Intelligence: a five country study. University of Queensland and KPMG. Brisbane, Australia.

157. Kusters, R., et al. (2020) Interdisciplinary Research in Artificial Intelligence: Challenges and Opportunities. Frontiers in Big Data 3: DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2020.577974.

158. Wang, M.-T. and J.L. Degol (2017) Gender Gap in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM): Current Knowledge, Implications for Practice, Policy, and Future Directions. Educational Psychology Review 29(1): 119-140.

159. Simoncini, K. and M. Lasen (2018) Ideas About STEM Among Australian Early Childhood Professionals: How Important is STEM in Early Childhood Education? International Journal of Early Childhood 50(3): 353-369.

160. Tai, R.H., et al. (2006) Planning early for careers in science. Science 312(5777): 1143-1144.

161. Maltese, A.V. and R.H. Tai (2011) Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among US students. Science education 95(5): 877-907.

162. McKinsey & Company (2017) Jobs lost, jobs gained: Workforce transitions in a time of automation. McKinsey & Company. New York, United States.

163. Frey, C.B. and M.A. Osborne (2017) The future of employment: how susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change 114(1): 254-280.

164. Dellermann, D., et al. (2019) The Future of Human-AI Collaboration: A Taxonomy of Design Knowledge for Hybrid Intelligence Systems. arXiv (arXiv:2105.03354). Cornell University.

165. Shook, E. and M. Knickrehm (2018) Reworking the revolution. Accenture. Sydney.

166. Partnership on AI (2019) Collaborations Between People and AI Systems (CPAIS): Human - AI Collaboration Framework and Case Studies. Partnership on AI (https://partnershiponai.org/). San Francisco, California, United States.

167. Castagno, S. and M. Khalifa (2020) Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence Among Healthcare Staff: A Qualitative Survey Study. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 3(84): DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2020.578983.

168. European Society of Radiology (2019) Impact of artificial intelligence on radiology: a EuroAIM survey among members of the European Society of Radiology. Insights Imaging 10(105): https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-019-0798-3.

169. Wang, D., et al. (2019) Human-AI collaboration in data science: Exploring data scientists’ perceptions of automated AI. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3(CSCW): 1-24.

170. Procter, R., B. Glover, and E. Jones (2020) Research 4.0: Research in the age of automation. Demos. London, United Kingdom.

171. Chubb, J., P. Cowling, and D. Reed (2021) Speeding up to keep up: exploring the use of AI in the research process. AI & Society DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01259-0.

172. Feuston, J.L. and J.R. Brubaker (2021) Putting Tools in Their Place: The Role of Time and Perspective in Human-AI Collaboration for Qualitative Analysis. Proceedings of the ACM on Human Computer Interaction 5(CSCW2): 1-25.

173. Jiang, J.A., et al. (2021) Supporting Serendipity: Opportunities and Challenges for Human-AI Collaboration in Qualitative Analysis. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5(CSCW1): 1-23.

174. Hervieux, S. and A. Wheatley (2021) Perceptions of artificial intelligence: A survey of academic librarians in Canada and the United States. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 47(1): 1-11.

175. Lund, B.D., et al. (2020) Perceptions toward Artificial Intelligence among Academic Library Employees and Alignment with the Diffusion of Innovations’ Adopter Categories. College & Research Libraries 81(5): DOI: https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.81.5.865.

176. Wood, B.A. and D. Evans (2018) Librarians’ perceptions of artificial intelligence and its potential impact on the profession. Kennesaw State University. Kennesaw, GA.

177. Cox, A.M., S. Pinfield, and S. Rutter (2019) The intelligent library: Thought leaders’ views on the likely impact of artificial intelligence on academic libraries. Library Hi Tech 37(3): 418-435.

178. Selwyn, N., et al. (2020) AI for Social Good-Australian Attitudes Toward AI and Society Report. pdf. Monash Data Futures Institute, Monash University. Victoria, Australia.

179. Oh, S., et al. (2019) Physician Confidence in Artificial Intelligence: An Online Mobile Survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research 21(3): DOI: 10.2196/12422.

180. Jarrahi, M.H. (2018) Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human-AI symbiosis in organizational decision making. Business Horizons 61(4): 577-586.

181. Lubars, B. and C. Tan (2019) Ask not what AI can do, but what AI should do: Towards a framework of task delegability. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.03245.

182. Krittanawong, C. (2018) The rise of artificial intelligence and the uncertain future for physicians. Eur J Intern Med 48: e13-e14.

183. Drozdal, J., et al. (2020) Trust in AutoML: Exploring Information Needs for Establishing Trust in Automated Machine Learning Systems.

184. Stathoulopoulos, K. and J. Mateos-Garcia (2019) Gender Diversity in AI Research. National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. London.

185. DISER (2021) STEM Equity Monitor 2021, a national data report on girls’ and women’s participation in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). Australian Government Department of Industry Science Energy and Resources. Canberra.

186. STA (2020) Diversity gains in Australia’s STEM workforce - But more needed. Science and Technology Australia (website accessed 8 February 2022). Canberra.

187. Ball, R. (2015) STEM the gap: Science belongs to us mob too. Australian Quarterly January-March: 13-19.

188. Latimer, J., et al. (2019) Australia’s strategy to achieve gender equality in STEM. The Lancet 393(10171): 524-526.

189. CSIRO (2022) Indigenous science (web page). CSIRO (Website accessed 8 February 2022, https://www.csiro. au/en/research/indigenous-science). Canberra.

190. CSIRO (2019) AI transforms Kakadu management CSIRO, Kakadu rangers and Microsoft meld science, Indigenous knowledge and technology in pioneering program. CSIRO Media Release (20 November). Canberra.

191. Schiff, D., et al. (2021) AI Ethics in the Public, Private, and NGO Sectors: A Review of a Global Document Collection. IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society 2(1): 31-42.

192. Schiff, D., et al. (2020) What’s Next for AI Ethics, Policy, and Governance? A Global Overview. Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. New York. Association for Computing Machinery. DOI: 10.1145/3375627.3375804.

193. Hagendorff, T. (2020) The Ethics of AI Ethics: An Evaluation of Guidelines. Minds and Machines 30(1): 99-120.

194. Jobin, A., M. Ienca, and E. Vayena (2019) The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence 1(9): 389-399.

195. DISER (2022) Australia’s Artificial Intelligence Ethics Framework. Department of Industry, Science and Energy Resources, Australian Government. Canberra.

196. Sanderson, C., et al. (2022) AI Ethics Principles in Practice: Perspectives of Designers and Developers. arXiv:2112.07467v2 (https:// doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2112.07467).

197. Burt, A. (2021) New AI Regulations Are Coming. Is Your Organization Ready? Harvard Business Review (April 30, 2021).

198. Treasury (2021) Request for Information and Comment on Financial Institutions’ Use of Artificial Intelligence, Including Machine Learning. Department of the Treasury, United States Government. Washington DC, United States.

199. EC (2021) Proposal for a Regulation laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence. European Commission (Policy and Legislation, Publication 21 April 2021). Brussels.

200. Angelov, P.P., et al. (2021) Explainable artificial intelligence: an analytical review. 11(5): e1424.

201. Briggs, C., Z. Fan, and P. Andras (2021) A Review of Privacy-Preserving Federated Learning for the Internet-of-Things, in Federated Learning Systems: Towards Next-Generation AI, M.H. Rehman and M.M. Gaber, Editors, Springer International Publishing: London.

202. Boulemtafes, A., A. Derhab, and Y. Challal (2020) A review of privacy-preserving techniques for deep learning. Neurocomputing 384: 21-45.

203. Fahse, T., V. Huber, and B. van Giffen (2021) Managing Bias in Machine Learning Projects. Innovation Through Information Systems. Cham. Springer International Publishing.

204. Harrison, S. and M. Weder (2009) Technological change and the roaring twenties: A neoclassical perspective. Journal of Macroeconomics 31(3): 363-375