Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42247389›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Structural consistency in AI governance: A PMC index assessment with evidence from China's central-level policies.

Simeng Zhang, Tao Zhang, Xi Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Simeng ZhangFaculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Macao Polytechnic University, Macao, People's Republic of China.
Tao ZhangFaculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Macao Polytechnic University, Macao, People's Republic of China.
Xi WangFaculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Macao Polytechnic University, Macao, People's Republic of China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4115-7632

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceChinaData MiningHumansPolicy Making

Identifiers

PMID42247389
PMCPMC13240918

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.