MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403025157 · doi:10.9785/cri-2024-250402

Defining AI Systems in the EU and Beyond

2024· article· en· W4403025157 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Theodoros Karathanasis

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Law Review International · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Criminal Justice and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsLaw and economicsBusinessComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The aim of this article is to assess the current global reach of the European Union’s regulatory influence on AI. This analysis focuses on how an “AI system” is defined in the final EU AI Act and presents the hypothesis that the more rigid the definition of AI systems is, the less global the reach of the EU AI Act’s standards will be, especially in countries with a strong tendency towards AI sovereignty. A qualitative comparative analysis of four case studies (Brazil, Canada, Chile, USA) reveals persistent divergences centred on the material scope of AI systems. In turn, the global reach of the EU AI Act seems rather limited at best in the long term.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.021
Scholarly communication0.0110.007
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Law Review InternationalSame topicEuropean Criminal Justice and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207