ArticlePloS one2026
Structural consistency in AI governance: A PMC index assessment with evidence from China's central-level policies.
Article in PloS one, 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
The structural coherence of policy design has become an increasingly important issue in artificial intelligence (AI) governance. This study evaluates the structural consistency of China's central-level AI policies issued between 2016 and 2025 (n = 54). It combines text mining to identify high-frequency policy terms and semantic co-occurrence patterns with a Policy Modeling Consistency (PMC) index framework comprising nine primary and forty-three secondary indicators. Five representative policies are then selected for detailed quantitative evaluation and visual comparison. The results show that China's AI policy system is generally well structured, but still exhibits notable weaknesses in temporal planning, intergovernmental coordination, and incentive design. In particular, long-term policy supply remains limited, vertical coordination mechanisms are insufficiently institutionalized, and policy instruments are unevenly configured across key support dimensions. These findings suggest that future policy improvement should focus on strengthening medium- and long-term planning, enhancing coordination across governance levels, and improving the integrated design of policy instruments. Methodologically, the study demonstrates a reproducible analytical framework linking text analysis, indicator construction, quantitative evaluation, and visualization. It contributes to the literature by moving from thematic description toward structural assessment in the study of AI governance.
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.