standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 2 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| object_of_study | SIX PUBLISHED SETS OF AI ETHICS PRINCIPLES, forty-seven principles in all, read against each other to find out whether they converge - the object is a vocabulary, not a phenomenon Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | object_of_study | the paper's words | |
| research_question | how to solve 'principle proliferation': whether the competing declarations say the same thing under different names, or genuinely disagree Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | five principles - beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy and justice imported from bioethics, plus EXPLICABILITY, argued to be new and necessary - claimed to capture all 47 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | method Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | a field generating ethical declarations faster than it can reconcile them, with 'similar terms often used to mean different things' and a risk the authors name as a 'market for principles' Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | conceptual-analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: conceptual-analysis | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | the convergence is explained by a structural resemblance between the fields, and the explanation is offered rather than tested: `Of all areas of applied ethics, bioethics is the one that most closely resembles digital ethics in dealing ecologically with new forms of agents, patients, and environments` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | and the fifth principle is argued for FUNCTIONALLY - explicability is needed because the other four cannot be checked without it: you cannot tell whether AI is beneficent without understanding what it does, nor hold anyone to account without knowing why an outcome arose Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | THE SAMPLE IS SIX DOCUMENTS AND THE PAPER SAYS WHERE THEY COME FROM: each `emerged either from initiatives with global scope, or from within western liberal democracies`, and the framework `would undoubtedly benefit from the perspectives of regions and cultures presently un- or under-represented` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the coverage claim and the distribution claim are DIFFERENT CLAIMS AND ONLY THE FIRST IS ABSOLUTE: the five principles `capture every one of the 47`, but each principle appears in `almost every statement` - and the paper's own Table 1 shows IEEE missing autonomy and justice, and the Partnership missing autonomy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | THE ADOPTION EVIDENCE INCLUDES BODIES THE AUTHORS SIT ON. AI4People and the EC High-Level Expert Group are counted as uptake, and the disclosure states that FLORIDI CHAIRED AI4PEOPLE, COWLS WAS ITS RAPPORTEUR, AND FLORIDI IS A MEMBER OF THE HLEG. Declared in full, and it is still the authors' framework being adopted by the authors' committees Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the funding sits on the subject: the work was supported by an EPSRC hub AND BY FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE - two of the companies whose AI the framework is written to govern. Declared Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the paper leaves its central ambiguity open and says so twice: `it is not entirely clear whether it is the people developing AI, or the technology itself, which should be encouraged not to do harm - in other words, whether it is Frankenstein or his monster against whose maleficence we should be guarding` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | and `justice` is left carrying more than one meaning inside the framework that is supposed to fix it: `Elsewhere ‘justice’ has still other meanings (especially in the sense of _fairness)`. The unification does not reach inside the principles Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the six documents were selected by three declared criteria - recent, relevant to AI and society as a whole rather than to one sector, and published by authoritative multi-stakeholder bodies of at least national scope Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: ad-hoc selection as the explanation of the convergence; the criteria are stated before the result and exclude domain-specific documents · outcome: held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | whether the convergence is an artefact of where the documents come from Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: nothing, and the authors say so: all six came from global-scope initiatives or 'from within western liberal democracies', and the framework would benefit from perspectives 'presently un- or under-represented in our sample' · outcome: failed | controls[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | whether the framework's later adoption is independent evidence for it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: nothing - AI4People and the EC High-Level Expert Group are counted as uptake, and the disclosure states the authors chaired, rapporteured and sat on them. THE DISCLOSURE IS COMPLETE AND THE CIRCULARITY IS STILL THERE · outcome: failed | controls[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | whether 'beneficence' and 'non-maleficence' are one principle wearing two names Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the collapse, explicitly: they 'may seem logically equivalent, they are not, and represent distinct principles', and the six documents treat them separately · outcome: held | controls[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | principle proliferation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: principle proliferation | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | explicability Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: explicability | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | intelligibility Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: intelligibility | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | accountability Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: accountability | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | beneficence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: beneficence | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | non-maleficence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: non-maleficence | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | bioethics Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: bioethics | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | digital ethics Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: digital ethics | concepts[7] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | artificial intelligence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: artificial intelligence | concepts[8] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | thinking Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: thinking | concepts[9] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | meta-autonomy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: meta-autonomy | concepts[10] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | `principle proliferation` - THE CONDITION THIS PAPER NAMES AND TREATS. Either the sets are similar, `leading to unnecessary repetition and redundancy`, or they differ, and `confusion and ambiguity will result instead`. The worst case is named too: a `market for principles` in which stakeholders `SHOP` for the most appealing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | THE DIAGNOSIS, WHICH IS THIS PROJECT'S OWN THESIS IN ONE CLAUSE: `the underlying meaning of each of the principles is contested, with similar terms often used to mean different things`. A shared word list is not a shared vocabulary Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | explicability - FIVE NAMES FOR ONE PRINCIPLE, LISTED WITH THEIR SOURCES: `TRANSPARENCY` in Asilomar and EGE, `transparency` AND `ACCOUNTABILITY` in IEEE, `INTELLIGIBILITY` in AIUK, `understandable and interpretable` in the Partnership. The new term is coined to cover a thing four documents already had Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | explicability, as defined - TWO SENSES DELIBERATELY BOUND TOGETHER: the EPISTEMOLOGICAL sense of intelligibility (`how does it work?`) and the ETHICAL sense of accountability (`who is responsible for the way it works?`). One term carrying two questions on purpose Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | AI - `A Research Area in Search of a Definition` in the paper's own heading. It keeps the 1955 Dartmouth formulation, reads it as A COUNTERFACTUAL (`WERE a human to behave in that way, that behaviour WOULD be called intelligent`), and then substitutes its own working phrase - `a reservoir of smart agency on tap` - justified by fitness for the corpus it is about to analyse Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | beneficence and non-maleficence - `THOUGH DO ONLY GOOD AND DO NO HARM MAY SEEM LOGICALLY EQUIVALENT, THEY ARE NOT, AND REPRESENT DISTINCT PRINCIPLES`. A near-synonymy refused explicitly, which is exactly the move most papers leave implicit Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | meta-autonomy - a coined term for `a DECIDE-TO-DELEGATE model`: humans keep the power to decide WHICH decisions to take, and any delegation must remain `overridable in principle (i.e., deciding to decide again)` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → Beauchamp & Childress's four principles of bioethics, carried into AI ethics with a fifth added and the imperfection of the translation stated Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | supports → the 1955 Dartmouth proposal's counterfactual formulation of the AI problem, kept as the working definition sixty-four years later Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | contradicts → the claim that ethics is 'Europe's silver bullet' in a 'global AI battle' - answered with two words, 'We disagree', and then with the reason Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | beneficence —distinct-from→ non-maleficence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: beneficence · non-maleficence | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | digital ethics —distinct-from→ bioethics Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span compares AI principles with bioethics principles; distinct-from is loose. also in: digital ethics · bioethics | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | THE CONDITION HAS A NAME: `principle proliferation` - either the sets are similar and produce `unnecessary repetition and redundancy`, or they differ and produce `confusion and ambiguity`, with the worst case a `market for principles` where stakeholders `SHOP` for the most appealing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the meaning of each principle is contested, with similar terms often used to mean different things Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | FOUR NAMES FOR ONE PRINCIPLE, EACH ATTRIBUTED TO ITS DOCUMENT: `transparency` in Asilomar and EGE, `transparency` and `accountability` in IEEE, `intelligibility` in AIUK, `understandable and interpretable` in the Partnership Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the principles converge on the four core bioethics principles, which adapt well to AI but do not offer a perfect translation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | `do only good` and `do no harm` are argued NOT to be logically equivalent and to `represent DISTINCT principles` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | six documents, 47 principles, and the five are claimed to `capture every one` - while the weaker distribution claim is hedged to `almost every statement` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | AI is defined by engineered outcomes and actions and treated here as a reservoir of smart agency on tap Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the sample is declared: all six sets came from global-scope initiatives or from WITHIN WESTERN LIBERAL DEMOCRACIES Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Floridi chaired AI4People, Cowls was its rapporteur, and Floridi sits on the EC High-Level Expert Group on AI Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Floridi's work was funded in part by Facebook and Google, as declared Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the central ambiguity is left open in the authors' own words: whether it is `Frankenstein or his monster against whose maleficence we should be guarding` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[10] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | incorporating both the epistemological sense of INTELLIGIBILITY (`how does it work?`) and the ethical sense of ACCOUNTABILITY (`who is responsible for the way it works?`) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: explicability | content_tags.definitions[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the 1955 Dartmouth formulation - making a machine behave in ways that WOULD BE CALLED intelligent IF a human were so behaving - read as a counterfactual about behaviour, not a claim about thinking Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: artificial intelligence | content_tags.definitions[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | a decide-to-delegate model: humans retain the power to decide which decisions to take, and delegation remains overridable in principle Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: meta-autonomy | content_tags.definitions[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | principles across the six documents, claimed to be captured entirely by the five Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | high-profile initiatives analysed - Asilomar, Montreal, IEEE, EGE, AIUK, the Partnership on AI Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | core principles in the resulting framework - four borrowed, one coined Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.