MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7128080566 · doi:10.32628/ijsrset242437

A Trustworthy AI and Data Governance Architecture for Ensuring Integrity and Ethics in Large Language Model Deployments across Enterprise Platforms

2024· article· W7128080566 on OpenAlexaff
Minjun Park, Hiroshi Tanaka, Wei Chen, Jaehoon Kim, Ananya Kulkarni

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Scientific Research in Science Engineering and Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEthics and Social Impacts of AI
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData governanceCorporate governanceAccountabilityEnterprise architectureOperationalizationGeneral Data Protection RegulationData integrityInformation governanceScalability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid enterprise adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) has transformed knowledge work, decision support, and digital service delivery, yet their deployment introduces substantial risks related to data integrity, privacy exposure, algorithmic bias, hallucinated outputs, and unclear accountability across organizational boundaries. Traditional data governance and information security models were not designed to manage probabilistic, generative systems whose behaviors evolve dynamically with context, prompting the need for a new class of trustworthy AI governance mechanisms. This paper proposes a comprehensive Trustworthy AI and Data Governance Architecture that embeds integrity, ethics, and compliance controls directly into the lifecycle of enterprise LLM deployments, spanning data acquisition, model training, fine-tuning, retrieval augmentation, prompt orchestration, inference monitoring, and post-deployment auditing. The framework integrates policy-driven guardrails, lineage tracking, explainability checkpoints, human-in-the-loop oversight, and continuous risk evaluation to ensure traceability and responsible decision making. Control layers are aligned with emerging guidance from National Institute of Standards and Technology risk management principles and regulatory expectations established by the European Commission AI governance initiatives, enabling measurable assurance of fairness, reliability, and accountability. Through a design-science methodology and enterprise reference scenarios, the architecture demonstrates how organizations can operationalize ethical AI practices without sacrificing scalability or performance. The proposed model advances governance-by-design, transforming trust from an abstract principle into enforceable technical and procedural controls, thereby enabling safe, compliant, and sustainable LLM adoption across complex enterprise platforms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0100.013
Open science0.0040.011
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.387 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Scientific Research in Science Engineering and TechnologySame topicEthics and Social Impacts of AIFrench-language works237,207