Computer Science > Computers and Society
arXiv:2601.04216 (cs)
Abstract:This paper tackles practical challenges in governing child centered artificial intelligence: policy texts state principles and requirements but often lack reproducible evidence anchors, explicit causal pathways, executable governance toolchains, and computable audit metrics. We propose Graph-GAP, a methodology that decomposes requirements from authoritative policy texts into a four layer graph of evidence, mechanism, governance, and indicator, and that computes two metrics, GAP score and mitigation readiness, to identify governance gaps and prioritise actions. Using the UNICEF Innocenti Guidance on AI and Children 3.0 as primary material, we define reprodu…
Computer Science > Computers and Society
arXiv:2601.04216 (cs)
Abstract:This paper tackles practical challenges in governing child centered artificial intelligence: policy texts state principles and requirements but often lack reproducible evidence anchors, explicit causal pathways, executable governance toolchains, and computable audit metrics. We propose Graph-GAP, a methodology that decomposes requirements from authoritative policy texts into a four layer graph of evidence, mechanism, governance, and indicator, and that computes two metrics, GAP score and mitigation readiness, to identify governance gaps and prioritise actions. Using the UNICEF Innocenti Guidance on AI and Children 3.0 as primary material, we define reproducible extraction units, coding manuals, graph patterns, scoring scales, and consistency checks, and we demonstrate exemplar gap profiles and governance priority matrices for ten requirements. Results suggest that compared with privacy and data protection, requirements related to child well being and development, explainability and accountability, and cross agency implementation and resource allocation are more prone to indicator gaps and mechanism gaps. We recommend translating requirements into auditable closed loop governance that integrates child rights impact assessments, continuous monitoring metrics, and grievance redress procedures. At the coding level, we introduce a multi algorithm review aggregation revision workflow that runs rule based encoders, statistical or machine learning evaluators, and large model evaluators with diverse prompt configurations as parallel coders. Each extraction unit outputs evidence, mechanism, governance, and indicator labels plus readiness scores with evidence anchors. Reliability, stability, and uncertainty are assessed using Krippendorff alpha, weighted kappa, intraclass correlation, and bootstrap confidence intervals.
| Comments: | Graph-GAP turns child centered AI governance requirements into a reproducible evidence mechanism governance indicator graph with computable gap and readiness scores |
| Subjects: | Computers and Society (cs.CY); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) |
| MSC classes: | 68T01, 68T30, 62F40 |
| ACM classes: | I.2.4; I.2.7; K.4.1; K.5.2 |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2601.04216 [cs.CY] |
| (or arXiv:2601.04216v1 [cs.CY] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2601.04216 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite |
Submission history
From: Wei Meng [view email] [v1] Sat, 20 Dec 2025 17:03:17 UTC (723 KB)
Current browse context:
cs.CY
Change to browse by:
export BibTeX citation