AI Governance in the Context of the EU AI Act (Extended Abstract)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has brought about significant societal changes, necessitating robust AI governance frameworks. This study analyzed the research trends in AI governance within the framework of the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act). This study conducted a bibliometric analysis to examine the publications indexed in the Web of Science database. Our findings reveal that research on AI governance, particularly concerning AI systems regulated by the EU AI Act, remains relatively limited compared to the broader AI research landscape. Nonetheless, a growing interdisciplinary interest in AI governance is evident, with notable contributions from multi-disciplinary journals and open-access publications. Analysis of publications per country revealed that while the United States and China dominate AI governance research, European countries, along with the United Kingdom, also contribute significantly with a focus on specific systems restricted by the Act. Dominant research themes include ethical considerations, privacy concerns, and the growing impact of generative AI, such as ChatGPT. Notably, education, healthcare, and worker management are prominent application domains. Keyword network analysis highlights education, ethics, and ChatGPT as central keywords, underscoring the importance of these areas in current AI governance research. Subsequently, a comprehensive literature review was undertaken based on the bibliometric analysis findings to identify research trends, challenges, and insights within the categories of the EU AI Act. This review revealed critical gaps in research concerning regulated AI systems, highlighting the need for more focused research aligned with the Act’s regulatory framework. The findings provide valuable insights for researchers and policymakers, informing future research directions and contributing to developing comprehensive AI governance frameworks beyond the EU AI Act. Crucially, the study identifies a significant lag between AI technological advancement and the development of policy and regulation, especially concerning specific AI systems categorized as high-risk by the EU AI Act.
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 | 0.006 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.045 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".