Decoding development: the AI frontier in policy crafting: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In today’s world, smart algorithms—artificial intelligence (AI) and other intelligent systems—are pivotal for promoting the development agenda. They offer novel support for decision-making across policy planning domains, such as analysing poverty alleviation funds and predicting mortality rates. To comprehensively assess their efficacy and implications in policy formulation, this paper conducts a systematic review of 207 publications. The analysis underscores their integration within and across stages of the policy planning cycle: problem diagnosis and goal articulation; resource and constraint identification; design of alternative solutions; outcome projection; and evaluation. However, disparities exist in smart algorithm applications across stages, economic development levels, and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While these algorithms predominantly focus on resource identification (29%) and contribute significantly to designing alternatives—such as long-term national energy policies—and projecting outcomes, including predicting multi-scenario land-use ecological security strategies, their application in evaluation remains limited (10%). Additionally, low-income nations have yet to fully harness AI’s potential, while upper-middle-income countries effectively leverage it. Notably, smart algorithm applications for SDGs also exhibit unevenness, with more emphasis on SDG 11 than on SDG 5 and SDG 17. Our study identifies literature gaps. Firstly, despite theoretical shifts, a disparity persists between physical and socioeconomic/environmental planning applications. Secondly, there is limited attention to policy-making in development initiatives, which is critical for improving lives. Future research should prioritise developing adaptive planning systems using emerging powerful algorithms to address uncertainty and complex environments. Ensuring algorithmic transparency, human-centered approaches, and responsible AI are crucial for AI accountability, trust, and credibility.
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 | 0.021 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".