Towards a United Nations Internal Regulation for Artificial Intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article sets out the rationale for a United Nations Regulation for Artificial Intelligence, which is needed to set out the modes of engagement of the organisation when using artificial intelligence technologies in the attainment of its mission. It argues that given the increasing use of artificial intelligence by the United Nations, including in some activities considered high risk by the European Commission, a regulation is urgent. It also contends that rules of engagement for artificial intelligence at the United Nations would support the development of ‘good artificial intelligence’, by giving developers clear pathways for authorisation that would build trust in these technologies. Finally, it argues that an internal regulation would build upon the work in artificial intelligence ethics and best practices already initiated in the organisation that could, like the Brussels Effect, set an important precedent for regulations in other countries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.105 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.032 | 0.039 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".