Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This research analyzed the institutional factors conditioning the responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI) and its relationship with the generation of public value in local governments in Ecuador. The study adopted a quantitative approach with an explanatory scope and a non-experimental, cross-sectional design. The research examined five variables: institutional capacity, data governance, human oversight, responsible AI use, and public value generation. Descriptive analysis included measures of central tendency, dispersion, and internal consistency (using Cronbach's alpha). Results showed that human oversight had the highest mean (M = 3.54), followed by public value generation (M = 3.41), while data governance recorded the lowest mean (M = 3.06). Institutional capacity reached a mean of 3.18, and responsible AI use, 3.27. Alpha coefficients ranged from 0.86 to 0.91, demonstrating adequate internal consistency across the scales. These findings identify data governance and institutional capacities as key areas for strengthening the responsible management of algorithmic systems. The study concludes that local governments need to integrate technical competencies, human oversight mechanisms, reliable data management, and transparency criteria to steer AI toward outcomes of collective interest.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
López et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: