HRI ethics and type-token ambiguity: what kind of robotic identity is most responsible?
Assessment outcome
total 1/4 (actionability 0 + authority 1); currency unscored, so pro-rated to 1.5/6
Authorship & scope
The authors are clearly named in the source text.
Level 1 (capped): the quote establishes a journal venue but does not establish the peer-review status required for Level 2.
Issuers, who it governs, legal force and content are on the full record.
Eligibility gates
HTTP 200, 1639 words of full text extracted
The paper focuses directly on robotic systems and artificial intelligence interaction.
The source addresses ethical challenges and responsible design for robotic systems.
The authors are clearly named in the source text.
There is no indication on the page that this version has been superseded or retracted.
Scored criteria
Actionability
0/2Level 0: Academic description and analysis only, with no specific obligations or binding steps for the reader.
Authority
1/2Level 1 (capped): the quote establishes a journal venue but does not establish the peer-review status required for Level 2.
Arnold, T., Scheutz, M. HRI ethics and type-token ambiguity: what kind of robotic identity is most responsible?. Ethics Inf Technol 22 , 357–366 (2020).
Currency
—computed: no publish/modified date found on the page (never guessed)