AI governance vocabulary (bias, transparency, privacy, accountability, regulation, fairness) is a structural zero in students' AI associative networks¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2031: baselines and conditions change
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Across 65 canonical codes and 1376 responses, no governance-related concept appears in any form — an absence the authors call a structural zero rather than a low-frequency result. → İsmail Şan and Hanife Gülhan Orhan Karsak 2026
Evidence¶
İsmail Şan and Hanife Gülhan Orhan Karsak 2026¶
İsmail Şan and Hanife Gülhan Orhan Karsak. (2026). Knowing its name, not its nature: word association mapping of student AI cognition and evidence-based micro-credential design in Turkish higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-026-00621-w
q2 · i? · associational · r2
Frequency analysis of the full WAT corpus (N = 436; 1376 coded responses) found that the conceptual vocabulary of AI governance was entirely absent. The article states "This is not a low-frequency result; it is a structural zero"; no effect size applies to an absence.
"bias, transparency, privacy, accountability, regulation, fairness - none of these appear in any form across 65 canonical codes and 1376 total responses. This is not a low-frequency result; it is a structural zero."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Reviewed studies identify data privacy, algorithmic bias, unequal access, and epistemic trust as central ethical concerns in educational AI — related
- Ethical and governance dimensions of AI were less prominent in teachers' narratives than pedagogical opportunities — related
- Turkish undergraduates' AI associations are anchored by utilitarian concepts, with Convenience and Speed alone accounting for 18.5% of all responses — related
- Ethical concerns (bias, transparency, privacy, authorship, accountability) emerge as cross-cutting dimensions of GenAI-specific TPK across studies of teacher educators — related
- The review identifies data privacy, algorithmic fairness, academic integrity, and unequal access as interconnected ethical concerns in AI-supported mathematics education — related
- Educators' use of AI in PBL is accompanied by persistent ethical concerns about data privacy, algorithmic bias, and educator autonomy — related
- The most reported risks of AI tools in science and chemistry education are ethical issues, including gender and racial bias, hallucinations, copyright infringement, and plagiarism — related
- Algorithmic and technical-mechanism concepts are marginal in students' AI networks: machine learning was produced by a single participant across 436 respondents — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
structural-zero-ai-governance-vocabulary |
title |
AI governance vocabulary (bias, transparency, privacy, accountability, regulation, fairness) is a structural zero in students' AI associative networks |
description |
AI governance vocabulary (bias, transparency, privacy, accountability, regulation, fairness) is a structural zero in students' AI associative networks |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
recheck_by |
2031 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-11 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — ismail-şan-and-hanife-gülhan-orhan-karsak-2026 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.