Navigating governance paradigms: A cross-regional comparative study of generative AI governance processes & principle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) technologies evolve at an unprecedented rate, global governance approaches struggle to keep pace with the technology, highlighting a critical issue in the governance adaptation of significant challenges. Depicting the nuances of nascent and diverse governance approaches based on risks, rules, outcomes, principles, or a mix across different regions around the globe is fundamental to discern discrepancies and convergences and to shed light on specific limitations that need to be addressed, thereby facilitating the safe and trustworthy adoption of GenAI. In response to the need and the evolving nature of GenAI, this paper seeks to provide a collective view of different governance approaches around the world. Our research introduces a Harmonized GenAI Framework, "H-GenAIGF," based on the current governance approaches of six regions: European Union (EU), United States (US), China (CN), Canada (CA), United Kingdom (UK), and Singapore (SG). We have identified four constituents, fifteen processes, twenty-five sub-processes, and nine principles that aid the governance of GenAI, thus providing a comprehensive perspective on the current state of GenAI governance. In addition, we present a comparative analysis to facilitate the identification of common ground and distinctions based on the coverage of the processes by each region. The results show that risk-based approaches allow for better coverage of the processes, followed by mixed approaches. Other approaches lag behind, covering less than 50% of the processes. Most prominently, the analysis demonstrates that among the regions, only one process aligns across all approaches, highlighting the lack of consistent and executable provisions. Moreover, our case study on ChatGPT reveals process coverage deficiency, showing that harmonization of approaches is necessary to find alignment for GenAI 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".