Decolonizing global AI governance: assessment of the state of decolonized AI governance in Sub-Saharan Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Global artificial intelligence (AI) governance must prioritize equity, embrace a decolonial mindset, and provide the Global South countries the authority to spearhead solution creation. Decolonization is crucial for dismantling Western-centric cognitive frameworks and mitigating biases. Integrating a decolonial approach to AI governance involves recognizing persistent colonial repercussions, leading to biases in AI solutions and disparities in AI access based on gender, race, geography, income and societal factors. This paradigm shift necessitates deliberate efforts to deconstruct imperial structures governing knowledge production, perpetuating global unequal resource access and biases. This research evaluates Sub-Saharan African progress in AI governance decolonization, focusing on indicators like AI governance institutions, national strategies, sovereignty prioritization, data protection regulations, and adherence to local data usage requirements. Results show limited progress, with only Rwanda notably responsive to decolonization among the ten countries evaluated; 80% are 'decolonization-aware', and one is 'decolonization-blind'. The paper provides a detailed analysis of each nation, offering recommendations for fostering decolonization, including stakeholder involvement, addressing inequalities, promoting ethical AI, supporting local innovation, building regional partnerships, capacity building, public awareness, and inclusive governance. This paper contributes to elucidating the challenges and opportunities associated with decolonization in SSA countries, thereby enriching the ongoing discourse on global AI governance.
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 | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".