MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7161649120 · doi:10.30837/rt.2025.4.223.01

Assessment of the effectiveness of international standards and regulatory acts governing artificial intelligence models for Ukraine

2025· article· W7161649120 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiotekhnika · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEthics and Social Impacts of AI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)AdaptabilityRanking (information retrieval)Pairwise comparisonDominance (genetics)Work (physics)International standardImpact assessment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article presents a comprehensive study of the effectiveness of international standards and regulatory acts in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) with the aim of determining the most appropriate model for their implementation in Ukraine. The aim of the work is to conduct a comparative assessment of the leading approaches to AI regulation developed in the EU, the US, Canada, the UK, South Korea, China and other countries, as well as recognised international ISO/IEC standards. The study is based on the comprehensive use of multi-criteria analysis methods: pairwise comparisons, determination of weight coefficients on the Fishburn scale, ranking methods, scoring and numerical evaluation. The assessment was carried out using a system of unconditional and conditional criteria, including validity, flexibility, ethics, complexity, progressiveness, level of transparency of algorithms, prospects for integration, availability of institutional support, and impact on innovative development. The use of the MathCad environment allowed for mathematical modelling and calculation of integral performance indicators. The results showed that the most balanced and promising for implementation in Ukraine are the European approach (EU AI Act) and the Canadian approach (AIDA), which demonstrate a high level of regulatory maturity, transparency of regulatory procedures, the presence of an ethical component, and effective institutional support. The American approach (NIST AI RMF) and the ISO/IEC 23894 standard took intermediate positions due to their versatility and flexibility. In contrast, the Chinese model showed the lowest adaptability to Ukrainian conditions due to the dominance of centralised control principles. The proposed assessment methodology can be used to develop a national AI regulation strategy in Ukraine aimed at ensuring a balance between security, ethics and innovative technological development.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.369 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiotekhnikaSame topicEthics and Social Impacts of AIFrench-language works237,207