Why managing AI risk presents new challenges
Aliquet morbi justo auctor cursus auctor aliquam. Neque elit blandit et quis tortor vel ut lectus morbi. Amet mus nunc rhoncus sit sagittis pellentesque eleifend lobortis commodo vestibulum hendrerit proin varius lorem ultrices quam velit sed consequat duis. Lectus condimentum maecenas adipiscing massa neque erat porttitor in adipiscing aliquam auctor aliquam eu phasellus egestas lectus hendrerit sit malesuada tincidunt quisque volutpat aliquet vitae lorem odio feugiat lectus sem purus.
- Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur lobortis pellentesque sit ullamcorpe.
- Mauris aliquet faucibus iaculis vitae ullamco consectetur praesent luctus.
- Posuere enim mi pharetra neque proin condimentum maecenas adipiscing.
- Posuere enim mi pharetra neque proin nibh dolor amet vitae feugiat.
The difficult of using AI to improve risk management
Viverra mi ut nulla eu mattis in purus. Habitant donec mauris id consectetur. Tempus consequat ornare dui tortor feugiat cursus. Pellentesque massa molestie phasellus enim lobortis pellentesque sit ullamcorper purus. Elementum ante nunc quam pulvinar. Volutpat nibh dolor amet vitae feugiat varius augue justo elit. Vitae amet curabitur in sagittis arcu montes tortor. In enim pulvinar pharetra sagittis fermentum. Ultricies non eu faucibus praesent tristique dolor tellus bibendum. Cursus bibendum nunc enim.
How to bring AI into managing risk
Mattis quisque amet pharetra nisl congue nulla orci. Nibh commodo maecenas adipiscing adipiscing. Blandit ut odio urna arcu quam eleifend donec neque. Augue nisl arcu malesuada interdum risus lectus sed. Pulvinar aliquam morbi arcu commodo. Accumsan elementum elit vitae pellentesque sit. Nibh elementum morbi feugiat amet aliquet. Ultrices duis lobortis mauris nibh pellentesque mattis est maecenas. Tellus pellentesque vivamus massa purus arcu sagittis. Viverra consectetur praesent luctus faucibus phasellus integer fermentum mattis donec.
Pros and cons of using AI to manage risks
Commodo velit viverra neque aliquet tincidunt feugiat. Amet proin cras pharetra mauris leo. In vitae mattis sit fermentum. Maecenas nullam egestas lorem tincidunt eleifend est felis tincidunt. Etiam dictum consectetur blandit tortor vitae. Eget integer tortor in mattis velit ante purus ante.
- Vestibulum faucibus semper vitae imperdiet at eget sed diam ullamcorper vulputate.
- Quam mi proin libero morbi viverra ultrices odio sem felis mattis etiam faucibus morbi.
- Tincidunt ac eu aliquet turpis amet morbi at hendrerit donec pharetra tellus vel nec.
- Sollicitudin egestas sit bibendum malesuada pulvinar sit aliquet turpis lacus ultricies.
“Lacus donec arcu amet diam vestibulum nunc nulla malesuada velit curabitur mauris tempus nunc curabitur dignig pharetra metus consequat.”
Benefits and opportunities for risk managers applying AI
Commodo velit viverra neque aliquet tincidunt feugiat. Amet proin cras pharetra mauris leo. In vitae mattis sit fermentum. Maecenas nullam egestas lorem tincidunt eleifend est felis tincidunt. Etiam dictum consectetur blandit tortor vitae. Eget integer tortor in mattis velit ante purus ante.
Modeling involves a set of scientific practices that pre-service science teachers struggle with. These practices involve constructing, predicting, testing, and revising models. Engaging meaningfully in modeling practices leads modelers to gain new insights about phenomena. Research suggests that this requires domain-general metamodeling knowledge and domain-specific content knowledge. However, research has not yet systematically investigated the role of metamodeling and content knowledge in the modeling practices, particularly regarding which practices benefit from either knowledge facet or their interplay. Addressing this gap, we interviewed 17 pre-service science teachers selected from a larger quantitative study based on their performance in metamodeling knowledge and modeling practice assessments. We showed participants their answers to the modeling practice assessments and asked them to recall their thinking. We analyzed their thinking processes, focusing on metamodeling and content knowledge application. By comparing high- and low-modeling-practice performers, we aimed to examine the role of these knowledge facets in modeling practices. Our study extends modeling literature with two main findings: First, both metamodeling and content knowledge supported the participants in engaging in modeling practices, but each practice had specific knowledge requirements. For instance, constructing models was driven by content knowledge, while an interplay between metamodeling and content knowledge supported revising models. Second, the metamodeling knowledge that participants demonstrated in the previous metamodeling knowledge assessment was not related to the metaknowledge they applied during modeling practices. This is best evidenced in testing models, for which participants frequently recalled metaknowledge they had not demonstrated in the previous metamodeling knowledge assessment. Our findings suggest that teaching modeling practices separately is probably beneficial, as this approach enables science educators to better scaffold practice-specific knowledge requirements. For future research, our results question the meaningfulness of metamodeling knowledge assessments, as the knowledge demonstrated in such assessments does not indicate the knowledge learners actually apply when engaging in modeling practices.
