MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Scalable Data Governance Models for AI-Powered Computing Architectures

2022· article· W7114998575 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican International Journal of Computer Science and Technology · 2022
Typearticle
Language
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Computing and Data Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScalabilityData governanceCorporate governanceBlueprintEnforcementSchema (genetic algorithms)Software deploymentInformation governanceAccess control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AI-powered computing architectures spanning cloud, edge, and on-device accelerators demand data governance models that scale across velocity, heterogeneity, and divergent regulatory regimes. This paper proposes a layered, policy-driven governance framework that separates a global control plane from distributed data planes to enable consistent enforcement with local autonomy. At the foundation, a metadata-centric “governance fabric” unifies catalogs, lineage, quality signals, and data contracts; on top, policy-as-code encodes access, purpose limitation, retention, and residency using declarative rules and continuous compliance checks. We synthesize patterns from data mesh and federated governance to support domain ownership without sacrificing enterprise guardrails, and introduce reference architecture with event-driven controllers, attribute-based access control, and consent/state propagation across services and models. For AI lifecycle coverage, the model extends to feature stores, embeddings, and artifacts, capturing provenance, drift, and evaluation results as first-class governance objects. Scalability is analyzed along organizational (domain autonomy, stewardship roles), technical (multi-cloud/edge deployment, schema evolution, streaming), and regulatory (cross-border transfer, sectoral rules) axes. We define operational metrics policy latency, lineage completeness, contract conformance, privacy risk, and auditability and present deployment guidance for phased adoption. The result is a pragmatic blueprint that enables high-velocity AI development while preserving trust, safety, and compliance through verifiable, automatable controls

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesOpen science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0170.017
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.313 · 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