Responsibilities of an Executive Leading AI Projects: Navigating Federal Directives for Safe and Inclusive Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This comprehensive article explores the intricate responsibilities of executives leading AI projects within the framework of Federal Directives, specifically Executive Order 14110 and Executive Order 14091. The executive role is dissected, covering aspects such as defining leadership in the AI context, historical perspectives, current trends, and challenges in AI project leadership. The article delves into the significance of Federal Directives, particularly Executive Order 14110, which emphasizes safe, secure, and trustworthy AI development, and Executive Order 14091, focusing on racial equity and support for underserved communities. Key provisions of these orders are outlined, including safe AI development, secure AI implementation, trustworthy AI use, and commitments to racial equity. The article also highlights steps that should guide documenting case studies that align with successful AI projects, showcasing compliance with Executive Orders and positive impacts on communities and organizations. The future outlook focuses on anticipating regulatory changes, adapting to evolving ethical standards, and promoting a culture of continuous improvement within AI projects. The conclusion summarizes executive responsibilities, emphasizing the call to action for ethical and inclusive AI leadership, contributing to the positive evolution of AI technologies for societal well-being.
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 | 0.058 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".