Reference change · event page
Reference changes · DOI
Published notice on a work cited in the Pith corpus. Exact quotes below. No model judges whether any citation was load-bearing.
This page records that a citing paper's bibliography includes a work with a published notice. It is not a judgment on the citing paper.
ref [54] · 2605.01091 · notice #1045 · dispute
Raw extraction · bibliography line
Hagendorff, T., 2020. The ethics of AI ethics: An eval- uation of guidelines. Minds and Machines 30, 99–120. doi:10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8. 22
ref [11] · 2605.05584 · notice #1044 · dispute
Raw extraction · bibliography line
Thilo Hagendorff. 2020. The Ethics of AI Ethics: An Evaluation of Guidelines. Minds Mach. 30, 1 (2020), 99–120. doi:10.1007/S11023-020-09517-8
ref [2] · 2605.16281 · notice #1046 · dispute
Raw extraction · bibliography line
Literature Review and Regulatory Background The governance of AI systems has become a central challenge in technology policy. Although existing scholarship has examined AI governance principles (Jobin, Ienca, & Vayena, 2019; Hagendorff, 2020), regulatory design (Smuha, 2021), and risk-based approaches (Novelli, Taddeo, & Floridi, 2023), empirical evidence on governance effectiveness remains limited. Much of the literature is normative, focusing on how governance should be structured rather than whether governance mechanisms function effectively when AI systems cause harm in practice. This study addresses that gap by grounding regulatory analysis in evidence from real-world incidents. The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines has expanded rapidly. Jobin, Ienca, and Vayena (2019) identified 84 AI ethics guidelines worldwide, with broad convergence around principles such as transparency, fairness, non-maleficence, responsibility, and privacy. Hagendorff (2020) found substantial gaps between these principles and their implementation, arguing that ethical guidelines are insufficient without enforceable mechanisms. Similarly, Smuha (2021) documented the shift from voluntary AI princip
ref [14] · 2607.07612 · notice #1047 · dispute
Raw extraction · bibliography line
Hagendorff, T.: The Ethics of AI Ethics: An Evaluation of Guidelines. Minds & Machines. 30, 1, 99–120 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8
Status lifecycle on notices: open → disputed → (response attached on the notice page). Repaired counts matter as much as open counts. There is no “safe,” “invalid,” or “resolved” badge.