SynthesisFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
AI spring and its regulation discourse: a bibliometric study of trends in literature.
Synthesis in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study was prompted by the rapid acceleration of AI capabilities in the trans former era since 2018 and the concurrent regulatory shift that elevated legal accountability and public governance to central policy and research priorities. It contributes by treating 2018-2025 as a distinct governance regime in which transformer-enabled capability scaling and foundation models shifted AI gov ernance debates toward enforceable accountability architectures. Methods: The study maps the regulation-accountability-public governance nexus as an operational problem: which accountability forums dominate, which regulatory instruments anchor in the field, and which public-administration mechanisms remain underdeveloped. Using multiple queries in the Web of Science Core Collection, validated with Scopus, and analyzed with Bibliometrix and complementary science-mapping techniques, the study examines publication trends, influen tial contributors and outlets, collaboration networks, and citation and thematic structures. Results: Publication output increases sharply after 2022, aligning with major regulatory milestones such as the EU AI Act. Results show a strong European concentration, with European actors serving as central hubs in collaboration networks and indicate that 2018-2021 publications form a foundational intel lectual core. The field is anchored in legally oriented concepts (law, transparency, governance, accountability, data protection), while themes such as legitimacy, institutional logics, and rights operationalization remain underdeveloped. Discussion: Despite growing interdisciplinarity, thematic fragmentation persists, highlighting the need for stronger integration across legal scholarship, public administration, and tech nical AI research, and providing a focused basis for future research and policy agendas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.