- A.I. A tool built by the UK government has accelerated the analysis of more than 50,000 responses to a government-commissioned water sector survey.
- The tool, dubbed Consult, turned out to be at least as accurate and reliable as humans.
- This tool could ultimately help save the 75,000 days of manual analysis that currently slows policy action across the government each year.
specialist A.I. Technology built by the UK government helped accelerate the government's decommissioning decision off watt.
The simple task of sorting over 50,000 responses into major themes led to the Independent Water Commission (IWC) Makes your analysis more efficient and effective. of A.I. The tool categorized answers into themes in around two hours, cost £240 and required just 22 hours for experts to review the results.
This allows policy experts to focus on using themes and categorized responses to inform independent report recommendations, rather than sorting through tens of thousands of individual responses.
Alongside A.I.-In addition to the assisted thematic analysis, the team also completed a detailed manual review of responses from stakeholders to ensure that stakeholder perspectives were thoroughly considered.
We compared the “consult” efforts with two expert groups. They agreed with one or both groups almost 83% of the time, whereas two well-trained groups of humans agreed with each other only 55% of the time.
Earlier this year, the tool successfully supported analysis of the Scottish Government's consultation on non-surgical cosmetics. It has also been confirmed that it was used to sort responses to the Digital Inclusion Action Plan. With 800 people responding to the Call for Evidence, the technology is accurate and has speeded up the government's ability to find early results.
The technology, part of Humphrey, will analyze responses from other consultations, saving officials from 75,000 days a year of manual analysis at a human cost of £20m. This helps create a more agile and effective state that refocuses on delivering change plans.
Digital Government Minister Ian Murray said:
This is technology A.I. To provide better and more efficient public services to the people and better value to taxpayers.
By taking on basic management duties, Consult gives staff time to focus on what's important: taking action to fix public services. Taxpayers could potentially save hundreds of thousands of pounds in the process.
Another tool in the Humphrey suite, called Redbox, helped the 5,330 officials at its peak work more efficiently, using the technology to summarize long documents, draft briefing notes, and more.
Since its introduction, major tech companies have begun offering tools, such as Microsoft Copilot, that provide a way for authorities to securely use large language models that are integrated into the IT systems they already use. These are often provided as part of existing software deals between governments and technology companies.
For example, a recent trial of Microsoft Copilot found that the technology saves authorities two weeks each year. As a result, the team's engineers are developing new tools, including those certified by the Prime Minister.A.I. Exemplar's aims include speeding up planning decisions to support housing construction and enabling probation officers to engage more impactfully with offenders.
As a result, Redbox has been open sourced, but development will not continue. The engineers who built this tool used their knowledge to build other technologies in the 'Humphrey' suite, and also shared the information used to build the generative tool, GOV.UK Chat. A.I. Chatbot to be trialled soon on GOV.UK app.
Note to editor
The Independent Water Commission’s consultation assessment shows it has secured an F1 score – a common measure for assessing the integrity of tap water. A.I. tools) 0.79 and 0.82. This is higher than the F1 score among human judges (0.74) and represents an increase from 0.76 when the technology was used in the Scottish Government consultation (2,000), which received fewer responses. There are two F1 numbers because there were two groups of reviewers who compared Consult. They reported individual scores for both groups.
visit:
