Boardroom AI: The Governance of AI-Assisted Corporate Decision-Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer a distant dream but a drastic change to the ordinary world of companies ascending in the corporate world. The governance of the boardroom is the technology that has been overshadowed, and now it is the topics of conversation in the boardroom. The organizations of the AI for the decision-making process of the boardroom bring numerous advantages like better efficiency, predictive analytics, and risk management in the conduct of the decision making process. On the one hand, it creates some governance challenges such as transparency, accountability, ethical compliance, and regulatory alignment but on the other hand, it automates boardroom decision-making, and a higher level of profitability is thus achievable. This study is an extensive discussion of decision making in the corporate world helped by AI by addressing its advantages, risks, and the changes in the boards' responsibilities, which they face when managing AI-related strategies. For better understanding of this new field, we provide research data, practical application examples, and the governance models that can be used by the organizations to guarantee the ethical AI implementation. We also deliberate on the requirements of human supervision, legal compliance, and moral considerations in AI governance. Moreover, it brings forth a systematic approach to the control of AI's dangers and the maximization of potential within the corporate governance framework.
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 | 0.029 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".