Artificial intelligence and global governance: How AI ethics and standards should be addressed at the global level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There have been huge leaps in artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in recent years, which have led to remarkable advancements from self-driving cars to opening your phone with Face ID. Without algorithms and other AI-based technologies, many sectors in society would not exist—they would still be immersed in sci-fi fantasies. But what is artificial intelligence? Is it how sci-fi media predicted it to be, a world filled with Terminators or a future like the Matrix? Or is it something more romantic and subtle, like the recent AI movie Her? The word itself has many different connotations, and this multiplicity reflects the lack of consensus around how people view AI and its intentions. Regardless of how AI is conceptualized, consideration must be given to its governance. This article works toward establishing a starting point for understanding AI global governance models.
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 | 0.035 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".