CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 38Ethics and Social Impacts of AIDigitalization, Law, and RegulationInformation Technology Governance and Strategy

Putting AI Ethics into Practice: The Hourglass Model of Organizational AI Governance

Open access
Mäntymäki, Matti, Minkkinen, Matti, Birkstedt, Teemu, Viljanen, Mika·2022·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2206.00335arXiv 2206.00335
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The organizational use of artificial intelligence (AI) has rapidly spread across various sectors. Alongside the awareness of the benefits brought by AI, there is a growing consensus on the necessity of tackling the risks and potential harms, such as bias and discrimination, brought about by advanced AI technologies. A multitude of AI ethics principles have been proposed to tackle these risks, but the outlines of organizational processes and practices for ensuring socially responsible AI development are in a nascent state. To address the paucity of comprehensive governance models, we present an AI governance framework, the hourglass model of organizational AI governance, which targets organizations that develop and use AI systems. The framework is designed to help organizations deploying AI systems translate ethical AI principles into practice and align their AI systems and processes with the forthcoming European AI Act. The hourglass framework includes governance requirements at the environmental, organizational, and AI system levels. At the AI system level, we connect governance requirements to AI system life cycles to ensure governance throughout the system's life span. The governance model highlights the systemic nature of AI governance and opens new research avenues into its practical implementation, the mechanisms that connect different AI governance layers, and the dynamics between the AI governance actors. The model also offers a starting point for organizational decision-makers to consider the governance components needed to ensure social acceptability, mitigate risks, and realize the potential of AI.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2206.00335

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Existing research has an uneven focus on AI ethics, with accountability and transparency less explored than bias.

    “Furthermore, existing research indicates an uneven focus on various aspects of AI ethics, with concepts such as accountability and transparency often less explored than bias (Mäntymäki et al., 2022; Tsamados et al., 2021).”

    From MAPPING GENERATIVE AI'S ETHICAL ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A FELT-GUIDED SYSTEMATIC REVIEW [PEMETAAN ISU ETIKA GENERATIVE AI DI PENDIDIKAN TINGGI: TINJAUAN SISTEMATIS BERPANDUAN FELT] (2025) · cites this paper as Mäntymäki et al., 2022

    The Introduction (p. 2) says reviews of AI ethics principles are plentiful while research on organizational governance practices is nascent. The environmental-layer discussion (p. 6) names transparency and fairness among prominent principles, but neither passage compares how much research addresses accountability or transparency versus bias. Searches for that comparison found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. Abraham, R., Schneider, J., & vom Brocke, J. (2019). Data governance: A conceptual framework, structured review, and research agenda. International Journal of Information Management , 49 , 424-438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.07.008 Almada, M. (2019). Human intervention in automated decision-making: Toward the construction of contestable systems. Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law - ICAIL '19 , 2-11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3322640.3326699 Ananny, M., & Crawford, K. (2018). Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society , 20 (3), 973-989. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816676645 Barredo Arrieta, A., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., Garcia, S., Gil-Lopez, S., Molina, D., Benjamins, R., Chatila, R., & Herrera, F. (2020). Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. Information Fusion , 58 , 82-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012 Benjamins, R., Barbado, A., & Sierra, D. (2019). Responsible AI by design in practice. ArXiv: Computers and Society . https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.12838v2 Brendel, A. B., Mirbabaie, M., Lembcke, T.-B., & Hofeditz, L. (2021). Ethical management of artificial intelligence. Sustainability , 13 (4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041974 Brous, P., Janssen, M., & Vilminko-Heikkinen, R. (2016). Coordinating decision-making in data management activities: A systematic review of data governance principles. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) , 9820 LNCS , 115-125. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44421-5\_9 Brown, A. E., & Grant, G. G. (2005). Framing the frameworks: A review of IT governance research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems , 15 (1). https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.01538 Butcher, J., & Beridze, I. (2019). What is the state of artificial intelligence governance globally? The RUSI Journal , 164 (5-6), 88-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071847.2019.1694260 Cath, C. (2018). Governing artificial intelligence: Ethical, legal and technical opportunities and challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , 376 (2133). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0080 Dafoe, A. (2018). AI Governance: A Research Agenda . Future of Humanity Institute. Dennehy, D., & Conboy, K. (2018). Identifying challenges and a research agenda for flow in software project management. Project Management Journal , 49 (6), 103-118. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972818800559 Dignum, V. (2019). Responsible artificial intelligence: How to develop and use ai in a responsible way . Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3030-30371-6 Dignum, V. (2020). Responsibility and artificial intelligence. In M. D. Dubber, F. Pasquale, & S. Das (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of ethics of AI (pp. 213-231). Oxford · DOI · Paper page
  2. Eitel-Porter, R. (2021). Beyond the promise: Implementing ethical AI. AI and Ethics , 1 (1), 73-80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-020-00011-6 Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1965). The causal texture of organizational environments. Human Relations , 18 (1), 21-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872676501800103 European Commission. (2018). Coordinated Plan on Artificial Intelligence . https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2018:795:FIN European Commission. (2021). Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL LAYING DOWN HARMONISED RULES ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ACT) AND AMENDING CERTAIN UNION LEGISLATIVE ACTS COM/2021/206 final . https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/proposal-regulation-laying-downharmonised-rules-artificial-intelligence-artificial-intelligence Floridi, L. (2018). Soft ethics, the governance of the digital and the General Data Protection Regulation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , 376 (2133), 20180081. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0081 Fumagalli, E., Rezaei, S., & Salomons, A. (2022). OK computer: Worker perceptions of algorithmic recruitment. Research Policy , 51 (2). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104420 Gahnberg, C. (2021). What rules? Framing the governance of artificial agency. Policy and Society , 40 (2), 194-210. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2021.1929729 Gall, M., & Pigni, F. (2021). Taking DevOps mainstream: A critical review and conceptual framework. European Journal of Information Systems , 0 (0), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2021.1997100 Gasser, U., & Almeida, V. A. F. (2017). A layered model for AI governance. IEEE Internet Computing , 21 (6), 58-62. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2017.4180835 Georgieva, I., Lazo, C., Timan, T., & van Veenstra, A. F. (2022). From AI ethics principles to data science practice: A reflection and a gap analysis based on recent frameworks and practical experience. AI and Ethics . https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00127-3 Gregory, R. W., Kaganer, E., Henfridsson, O., & Ruch, T. J. (2018). IT consumerization and the transformation of IT governance. MIS Quarterly , 42 (4), 1225-1253. Hagendorff, T. (2020). The ethics of AI ethics: An evaluation of guidelines. Minds and Machines , 30 (1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8 Harjoto, M. A., & Jo, H. (2011). Corporate governance and CSR nexus. Journal of Business Ethics , 100 (1), 45-67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0772-6 Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly , 28 (1), 75-105. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148625 Hua, X., Huang, Y., & Zheng, Y. (2019). Current practices, new insights, and emerging trends of financial technologies. Industrial Management and Data Systems , 119 (7), 1401-1410. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-08-2019-0431 Ibáñez, J. C., & Olmeda, M. V. (2021). Operationalising AI ethics: How are companies bridging the gap between practice and principles? An exploratory study. AI & SOCIETY . https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01267-0 Iliadis, A., & Russo, F. (2016). Critical data studies: An introduction. Big Data & Society , 3 (2), 2053951716674238. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716674238 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Janssen, M., Brous, P., Estevez, E., Barbosa, L. S., & Janowski, T. (2020). Data governance: Organizing data for trustworthy Artificial Intelligence. Government Information Quarterly , 37 (3), 101493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101493 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence , 1 (9), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-0190088-2 · DOI
  5. Jöhnk, J., Weißert, M., & Wyrtki, K. (2020). Ready or not, AI comes-An interview study of organizational AI readiness factors. Business & Information Systems Engineering , 63 (1), 5-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-020-00676-7 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Johnson, W. G., & Bowman, D. M. (2021). A survey of instruments and institutions available for the global governance of artificial intelligence. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine , 40 (4), 68-76. https://doi.org/10.1109/MTS.2021.3123745 · DOI
  7. Kaminski, M. E., & Malgieri, G. (2020). Multi-layered explanations from algorithmic impact assessments in the GDPR. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , 68-79. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372875 · DOI
  8. Kazim, E., Koshiyama, A. S., Hilliard, A., & Polle, R. (2021). Systematizing audit in algorithmic recruitment. Journal of Intelligence , 9 (3), 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence9030046 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Kitchin, R. (2017). Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information, Communication & Society , 20 (1), 14-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154087 · DOI
  10. Laato, S., Birkstedt, T., Mäntymäki, M., Minkkinen, M., & Mikkonen, T. (2022). AI governance in the system development life cycle: Insights on responsible machine learning engineering. Proceedings of the 1st Conference on AI Engineering - Software Engineering for AI . CAIN, New York, N.Y. https://doi.org/10.1145/3522664.3528598 · DOI
  11. Laato, S., Mäntymäki, M., Birkstedt, T., Islam, A. K. M. N., & Hyrynsalmi, S. (2021). Digital Transformation of Software Development: Implications for the Future of Work. In D. Dennehy, A. Griva, N. Pouloudi, Y. K. Dwivedi, I. Pappas, & M. Mäntymäki (Eds.), Responsible AI and Analytics for an Ethical and Inclusive Digitized Society (pp. 609-621). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85447-8\_50 · DOI
  12. Laato, S., Mäntymäki, M., Islam, A. K. M. N., Hyrynsalmi, S., & Birkstedt, T. (2022). Trends and trajectories in the software industry: Implications for the future of work. Information Systems Frontiers . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-022-10267-4 · DOI
  13. Laato, S., Mäntymäki, M., Minkkinen, M., Birkstedt, T., Islam, A. K. M. N., & Dennehy, D. (2022). Integrating machine learning with software development lifecycles: Insights from experts. ECIS 2022 Proceedings . ECIS, Timișoara, Romania.
  14. Laato, S., Tiainen, M., Islam, A. K. M. N., & Mäntymäki, M. (2022). How to explain AI systems to end users: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Internet Research , 32 (7). https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-08-2021-0600 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Mäkinen, S., Skogström, H., Laaksonen, E., & Mikkonen, T. (2021). Who needs MLOps: What data scientists seek to accomplish and how can MLOps help? 2021 IEEE/ACM 1st Workshop on AI Engineering - Software Engineering for AI (WAIN) , 109-112. https://doi.org/10.1109/WAIN52551.2021.00024 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Mäntymäki, M., Minkkinen, M., Birkstedt, T., & Viljanen, M. (2022). Defining organizational AI governance. AI and Ethics , 2 , 603-609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00143-x · DOI
  17. Martin, K. (2019). Ethical implications and accountability of algorithms. Journal of Business Ethics , 160 (4), 835-850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3921-3 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Meske, C., Bunde, E., Schneider, J., & Gersch, M. (2022). Explainable artificial intelligence: Objectives, stakeholders, and future research opportunities. Information Systems Management , 39 (1), 53-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2020.1849465 · DOI
  19. Metcalf, J., Moss, E., Watkins, E. A., Singh, R., & Elish, M. C. (2021). Algorithmic impact assessments and accountability: The co-construction of impacts. Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , 735-746. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445935 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Minkkinen, M. (2019). Making the future by using the future: A study on influencing privacy protection rules through anticipatory storylines. New Media & Society , 21 (4), 9841005. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818817519 · DOI
  21. Minkkinen, M., Laine, J., & Mäntymäki, M. (2022). Continuous auditing of artificial intelligence: A conceptualization and assessment of tools and frameworks. Digital Society , 1 (3), 21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44206-022-00022-2 · DOI
  22. Minkkinen, M., Niukkanen, A., & Mäntymäki, M. (2022). What about investors? ESG analyses as tools for ethics-based AI auditing. AI & SOCIETY . https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01415-0 · DOI
  23. Minkkinen, M., Zimmer, M. P., & Mäntymäki, M. (2022). Co-shaping an ecosystem for responsible AI: Five types of expectation work in response to a technological frame. Information Systems Frontiers . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-022-10269-2 · DOI
  24. Morley, J., Floridi, L., Kinsey, L., & Elhalal, A. (2020). From what to how: An initial review of publicly available AI ethics tools, methods and research to translate principles into practices. Science and Engineering Ethics , 26 (4), 2141-2168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00165-5 · DOI · Paper page
  25. OECD. (2019). Scoping the OECD AI principles: Deliberations of the Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence at the OECD (AIGO) . OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/d62f618a-en · DOI
  26. Rahwan, I. (2018). Society-in-the-loop: Programming the algorithmic social contract. Ethics and Information Technology , 20 (1), 5-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-017-9430-8 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Raji, I. D., Smart, A., White, R. N., Mitchell, M., Gebru, T., Hutchinson, B., Smith-Loud, J., Theron, D., & Barnes, P. (2020). Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an endto-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , 33-44. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372873 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Ramírez, R., & Selsky, J. W. (2016). Strategic planning in turbulent environments: A social ecology approach to scenarios. Long Range Planning , 49 (1), 90-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2014.09.002 · DOI
  29. Renda, A. (2020). Europe: Toward a policy framework for trustworthy AI. In M. D. Dubber, F. Pasquale, & S. Das (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI (pp. 649-666). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190067397.013.41 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Rezende, I. N. (2020). Facial recognition in police hands: Assessing the 'Clearview case' from a European perspective. New Journal of European Criminal Law , 11 (3), 375389.
  31. Schiff, D., Biddle, J., Borenstein, J., & Laas, K. (2020). What's next for AI ethics, policy, and governance? A global overview. Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , 153-158. https://doi.org/10.1145/3375627.3375804 · DOI
  32. Schiff, D., Rakova, B., Ayesh, A., Fanti, A., & Lennon, M. (2021). Explaining the principles to practices gap in AI. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine , 40 (2), 81-94. https://doi.org/10.1109/MTS.2021.3056286 · DOI
  33. Schmitt, L. (2021). Mapping global AI governance: A nascent regime in a fragmented landscape. AI and Ethics . https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00083-y · DOI
  34. Schneider, J., Abraham, R., & Meske, C. (2020). AI governance for businesses. ArXiv:2011.10672 [Cs] . http://arxiv.org/abs/2011.10672 · arXiv
  35. Seppälä, A., Birkstedt, T., & Mäntymäki, M. (2021). From ethical AI principles to governed AI. Proceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS2021) . International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Austin, Texas. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2021/ai\_business/ai\_business/10/ Shah, H. (2018). Algorithmic accountability. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , 376 (2128), 20170362. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2017.0362 Shneiderman, B. (2020). Bridging the gap between ethics and practice: Guidelines for reliable, safe, and trustworthy human-centered AI systems. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems , 10 (4). https://doi.org/10.1145/3419764 Stahl, B. C. (2021). Artificial intelligence for a better future: An ecosystem perspective on the ethics of AI and emerging digital technologies . Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69978-9 Stahl, B. C. (2022). Responsible innovation ecosystems: Ethical implications of the application of the ecosystem concept to artificial intelligence. International Journal of Information Management , 62 , 102441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102441 Steijn, W. M. P., & Vedder, A. (2015). Privacy under construction: A developmental perspective on privacy perception. Science, Technology, & Human Values , 40 (4), 615-637. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243915571167 Sun, T. Q., & Medaglia, R. (2019). Mapping the challenges of Artificial Intelligence in the public sector: Evidence from public healthcare. Government Information Quarterly , 36 (2), 368-383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.09.008 Taeihagh, A. (2021). Governance of artificial intelligence. Policy and Society , 40 (2), 137157. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2021.1928377 Thiebes, S., Lins, S., & Sunyaev, A. (2021). Trustworthy artificial intelligence. Electronic Markets , 31 (2), 447-464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-020-00441-4 Tiwana, A., & Kim, S. K. (2015). Discriminating IT governance. Information Systems Research . https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2015.0591 Trocin, C., Mikalef, P., Papamitsiou, Z., & Conboy, K. (2021). Responsible AI for digital health: A synthesis and a research agenda. Information Systems Frontiers . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-021-10146-4 Tsohou, A., & Kosta, E. (2017). Enabling valid informed consent for location tracking through privacy awareness of users: A process theory. Computer Law & Security Review , 33 (4), 434-457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2017.03.027 Viljanen, M., & Parviainen, H. (2022). AI applications and regulation: Mapping the regulatory strata. Frontiers in Computer Science , 3 . https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fcomp.2021.779957 Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Floridi, L. (2017). Transparent, explainable, and accountable AI for robotics. Science Robotics , 2 (6), eaan6080. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aan6080 Weill, P. (2008). Don't just lead, govern: How top-performing firms govern IT. MIS Quarterly Executive , 3 (1). https://aisel.aisnet.org/misqe/vol3/iss1/3 Whittlestone, J., Nyrup, R., Alexandrova, A., & Cave, S. (2019). The role and limits of principles in AI ethics: Towards a focus on tensions. Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , 195-200. https://doi.org/10.1145/3306618.3314289 Wieringa, M. (2020). What to account for when accounting for algorithms: A systematic literature review on algorithmic accountability. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372833 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Winfield, A. F. T., & Jirotka, M. (2018). Ethical governance is essential to building trust in robotics and artificial intelligence systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , 376 (2133), 20180085. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0085 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Wirtz, B. W., Weyerer, J. C., & Geyer, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence and the public sector-Applications and challenges. International Journal of Public Administration , 42 (7), 596-615. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2018.1498103 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Ziewitz, M. (2016). Governing algorithms: Myth, mess, and methods. Science, Technology, & Human Values , 41 (1), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243915608948 · DOI
  39. Zimmer, M. P., Minkkinen, M., & Mäntymäki, M. (2022). Responsible artificial intelligence systems: Critical considerations for business model design. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems .

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mäntymäki, M., Minkkinen, M., Birkstedt, T., & Viljanen, M.
Affiliations
University of Turku (FI)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2206.00335
arXiv
2206.00335
OpenAlex
W4281620660
Cited by
38
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
Business Finland
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Technology Governance and Strategy
Keywords
AI governance, AI ethics, hourglass model, EU AI Act, governance requirements

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review