Evaluating international AI skills policy: A systematic review of AI skills policy in seven countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As artificial intelligence (AI) is having an increasingly disruptive impact across industries, companies continue to report having difficulty when recruiting for AI roles, while new graduates find it difficult to find employment, indicating a skills gap or skills misalignment. International approaches to AI skills programmes can offer a guide to future policy development of a skilled workforce, best placed to harness the economic opportunities that AI may support. The authors performed a systematic literature review on AI skills in government policies and documents from seven countries: Australia, Canada, China, Singapore, Sweden, the United Kingom and the United States. We found a divide between countries which emphasised a broader, nationwide approach to upskill and educate all citizens at different levels, namely the United States and Singapore and those countries which emphasised a narrower focus on educating a smaller group of experts with advanced AI knowledge and skills, namely China, Sweden and Canada. We found that the former, broader approaches tended to correlate with higher AI readiness and index scores than the narrower, expert‐driven approach. Our findings indicate that, to match world‐leading AI readiness, future AI skills policy should follow these broad, nationwide approaches to upskill and educate all citizens at different levels of AI expertise.
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 | 0.026 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".