MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408165519 · doi:10.2478/iclr-2024-0017

The EU AI Act’s Alignment within the European Union’s Regulatory Framework on Artificial Intelligence

2024· article· en· W4408165519 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMezinárodní a srovnávací právní revue/International and Comparative Law Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Policy Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean CommissionInstitute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction
KeywordsEuropean unionConsistency (knowledge bases)NegotiationLegislatureEuropean commissionScope (computer science)CommissionPolitical sciencePublic administrationArtificial intelligenceLawInternational tradeBusinessComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The European Union (EU) Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act is the first horizontal regulation on AI, aiming to regulate the development, placement on the market, and use of AI systems in the EU. The initial proposal was published by the European Commission (EC) in April 2021, and after an intensive three-year period of discussions, revisions, and negotiations, on December 9, 2023, a provisional agreement was reached on the final text. This marked the culmination of a series of ethical policy and legislative foundations that have created a broad and highly influential regulatory framework on AI in the EU. However, the consistency of the final draft within this established institutional environment on AI merits a close examination. This paper studies the AI Act text and its alignment within this framework. It will use the partial institutional analysis method to map the regulatory landscape, identify the most important sources within the said scope, and critically assess their consistency.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.908

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.285 · 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