Privacy Ethics Alignment in AI: A Stakeholder-Centric Framework for Ethical AI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in digital ecosystems has reshaped privacy dynamics, particularly for young digital citizens navigating data-driven environments. This study explores evolving privacy concerns across three key stakeholder groups—young digital citizens, parents/educators, and AI professionals—and assesses differences in data ownership, trust, transparency, parental mediation, education, and risk–benefit perceptions. Employing a grounded theory methodology, this research synthesizes insights from key participants through structured surveys, qualitative interviews, and focus groups to identify distinct privacy expectations. Young digital citizens emphasized autonomy and digital agency, while parents and educators prioritized oversight and AI literacy. AI professionals focused on balancing ethical design with system performance. The analysis revealed significant gaps in transparency and digital literacy, underscoring the need for inclusive, stakeholder-driven privacy frameworks. Drawing on comparative thematic analysis, this study introduces the Privacy–Ethics Alignment in AI (PEA-AI) model, which conceptualizes privacy decision-making as a dynamic negotiation among stakeholders. By aligning empirical findings with governance implications, this research provides a scalable foundation for adaptive, youth-centered AI privacy 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 | 0.038 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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".