MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4364861368 · doi:10.35668/2520-6524-2023-1-03

Policies and strategies for the development of artificial intelligence in the countries of the world: quo vadis? (part 1)

2023· article· en· W4364861368 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Technologies Innovation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLaw, AI, and Intellectual Property
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatus quoEuropean unionPolitical scienceUkrainianChinaEconomic growthBusinessEconomic policyEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The organizational and economic and legal aspects of the development and implementation of policies and strategies for the development of artificial intelligence (AI) in the leading countries of the world have been studied. All major economies (more than 60 countries) have developed national policies (strategies) for the development of AI. The following countries are considered advanced in the implementation of national AI strategies: USA, China, Canada, UK, Japan, UAE, France, Germany, South Korea, India and most countries of the European Union (EU). The structure of AI development strategies, priorities, funding models were considered, the main principles of the development and use of AI technologies, priority directions, goals and objectives of the use of AI were analyzed. The problems associated with the use of AI are highlighted: these are issues of data for processing AI, control over the use of AI, tracking AI decisions and responsibility for their adoption, control over confidentiality, ensuring the protection of personal data. Comparing the Ukrainian concept of AI development with the strategies of developed countries, we can conclude that it will not contribute to the effective development of AI, since investments in AI technologies differ hundreds of times, incentive tools and specific actions for the development of AI are not provided. The Institute of Artificial Intelligence Problems of the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine and the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine have developed a project of the Strategy for the Development of Artificial Intelligence in Ukraine for 2022–2030. The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine needs to take measures to adopt the Strategy for the Development of Artificial Intelligence in Ukraine. It is concluded that there is a process of formation of two large spaces in the field of AI technologies in the international arena: the first unites the OECD countries with the unconditional financial, technological and value-normative dominance of the USA and the EU. The second is formed around China, in whose orbit countries fall, for which cooperation with the West is complicated due to a wide range of international conflicts (including Russia). Countries that are unable to resist the technological hegemony of China and the United States are faced with the dilemma of choosing between two large technological spaces.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.486
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it