The Different Faces of AI Ethics Across the World: A Principle-to-Practice Gap Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming our daily life with many applications in healthcare, space exploration, banking, and finance. This rapid progress in AI has brought increasing attention to the potential impacts of AI technologies on society, with ethically questionable consequences. In recent years, several ethical principles have been released by governments, national organizations, and international organizations. These principles outline high-level precepts to guide the ethical development, deployment, and governance of AI. However, the abstract nature, diversity, and context-dependence of these principles make them difficult to implement and operationalize, resulting in gaps between principles and their execution. Most recent work analyzed and summarized existing AI principles and guidelines but did not provide findings on principle-to-practice gaps nor how to mitigate them. These findings are particularly important to ensure that AI practical guidances are aligned with ethical principles and values. In this article, we provide a contextual and global evaluation of current ethical AI principles for all continents, with the aim to identify potential principle characteristics tailored to specific countries or applicable across countries. Next, we analyze the current level of AI readiness and current practical guidances of ethical AI principles in different countries, to identify gaps in the practical guidance of AI principles and their causes. Finally, we propose recommendations to mitigate the principle-to-practice gaps.
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 | 0.127 | 0.152 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".