Responsible artificial intelligence in Africa: towards policy learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Several African countries are developing artificial intelligence (AI) strategies and ethics frameworks with the goal of accelerating responsible AI development and adoption. However, many of these governance actions are emerging without consideration for their suitability to local contexts, including whether the proposed policies are feasible to implement and what their impact may be on regulatory outcomes. In response, we suggest that there is a need for more explicit policy learning, by looking at existing governance capabilities and experiences related to algorithms, automation, data, and digital technology in other countries and in adjacent sectors. From such learning, it will be possible to identify where existing capabilities may be adapted or strengthened to address current AI-related opportunities and risks. This paper explores the potential for learning by analysing existing policy and legislation in twelve African countries across three main areas: strategy and multi-stakeholder engagement, human dignity and autonomy, and sector-specific governance. The findings point to a variety of existing capabilities that could be relevant to responsible AI; from existing model management procedures used in banking and air quality assessment to efforts aimed at enhancing public sector skills and transparency around public–private partnerships, and the way in which existing electronic transactions legislation addresses accountability and human oversight. All of these point to the benefit of wider engagement on how existing governance mechanisms are working, and on where AI-specific adjustments or new instruments may be needed.
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 | 0.039 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".