---
格式版本: 2
标题: "Co-constructing sociotechnical AI governance: participatory system mapping using algorithm registers"
原文链接: "https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.12166"
发布日期: "2026-08-12"
发布时间校准状态: "found"
发布时间需复核: "否"
发布时间来源: "rule:local:strict_original_body"
发布时间证据: "**\\[v1\\]** Wed, 12 Aug 2026 15:27:45 UTC (339 KB)"
发布时间校准原因: "规则确认唯一严格发布时间，来源 local:strict_original_body"
发布时间校准置信度: "high"
发布时间候选数量: 18
发布时间严格候选数量: 6
发布时间原页读取状态: "source template page reused from URL open"
发布时间未找到原因: ""
发布时间校准时间: "2026-08-13T18:33:01+08:00"
发布时间仲裁状态: "skipped"
发布时间仲裁尝试次数: 0
发布时间仲裁耗时毫秒: 0
发现时间: "2026-08-13T18:24:32+08:00"
入库时间: "2026-08-13T10:33:01.645Z"
来源平台: "arXiv 学术论文搜索"
搜索渠道: "source_template"
搜索词: "https://arxiv.org/search/?query=AI&searchtype=all"
匹配关键词:
  - "AI"
  - "performance"
相关厂家:
  []
相关专家:
  []
内容类型: "网页"
抓取工具: "Free Fetch + Defuddle"
清洗工具: "Defuddle Markdown + Defuddle/Readability 正文提取"
原始附件:
  []
AI质检状态: "评分失败"
AI评分尝试次数: 1
AI评分错误类型: "service_error"
AI评分错误: "LLM call failed; tried model chain: ali-deepseek-v4-flash -> tx-deepseek-v4-flash | Model ali-deepseek-v4-flash failed 500: {\"error\":{\"code\":\"\",\"message\":\"Database error, please contact the administrator (request id: 202608131033052307478508268d9d6c2mqoxC2)\",\"type\":\"new_api_error\"}} | Model tx-deepseek-v4-flash failed 500: {\"error\":{\"code\":\"\",\"message\":\"Database error, please contact the administrator (request id: 202608131033057946342238268d9d6wfHyBtzb)\",\"type\":\"new_api_error\"}}"
AI评分开始时间: "2026-08-13T10:33:02.986Z"
AI评分结束时间: "2026-08-13T10:33:05.926Z"
AI摘要: "研究者以荷兰某市算法注册表为案例，结合访谈、调查和参与式系统映射工作坊（N=8），分析福利资格决策支持工具；仅凭注册表无法识别的安全隐患，包括福利资格被错误拒绝、系统性能恶化和无法申诉，需引入多方利益相关者视角。"
AI摘要模型: "ali-deepseek-v4-flash"
AI摘要时间: "2026-09-07T03:39:59.986Z"
采集批次: "2026年8月13日18点24分27秒"
采集批次ID: "20260813-182427-1564e572"
去重键: "https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.12166"
---

## Computer Science > Computers and Society

## Title:Co-constructing sociotechnical AI governance: participatory system mapping using algorithm registers

Authors:[Íñigo de Troya](https://arxiv.org/search/cs?searchtype=author&query=de+Troya,+%C3%8D), [Maurus Enbergs](https://arxiv.org/search/cs?searchtype=author&query=Enbergs,+M), [Neelke Doorn](https://arxiv.org/search/cs?searchtype=author&query=Doorn,+N), [Roel Dobbe](https://arxiv.org/search/cs?searchtype=author&query=Dobbe,+R)

[View PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.12166) [HTML (experimental)](https://arxiv.org/html/2608.12166v1)

> Abstract:Algorithm registers have been championed as a means of providing transparency on the use of algorithms in public services. Yet potential publics differ in their expectations of what should be made transparent and how, as well as in their interest in and ability to parse the information currently published in the registers. Moreover, it remains unclear how these instruments can represent the sociotechnical systems in which these algorithms are embedded, and how system-level transparency can facilitate accountability. In this paper, we ask, what do algorithm registers reveal (and occlude) about the sociotechnical systems governing algorithmic systems, and how can diverse stakeholder perspectives inform a more pluralistic system-theoretic safety analysis? To do this, we probe the municipal algorithm register of a Dutch city through a case study of a decision-support tool for caseworkers' assessment of citizens' welfare benefits eligibility based on legal automation through a business rule engine. Through interviews, surveys, and participatory system mapping workshops (with municipal staff, civil society organisations, and ombudsmen, N=8), we seek to understand to what extent the register allows stakeholders to map the algorithmic system in question. These maps inform a System-Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA) that situates the register within a wider sociotechnical governance structure. Participants' contributions allow us to identify potential safety hazards which would not have been possible to see using the algorithm register alone, including benefits eligibility denial, system performance deterioration, and inability to contest wrongful decisions. By engaging both direct and indirect stakeholders, we reflect on the normative dimensions of algorithm governance efforts and how politics shape the practice of system safety analysis.

| Subjects: | Computers and Society (cs.CY); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Systems and Control (eess.SY) |
| --- | --- |
| Cite as: | [arXiv:2608.12166](https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.12166) \[cs.CY\] |
|  | (or [arXiv:2608.12166v1](https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.12166v1) \[cs.CY\] for this version) |
|  | [https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.12166](https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.12166) |

## Submission history

From: Íñigo De Troya \[[view email](https://arxiv.org/show-email/cb49a7b9/2608.12166)\]  
**\[v1\]** Wed, 12 Aug 2026 15:27:45 UTC (339 KB)

[Which authors of this paper are endorsers?](https://arxiv.org/auth/show-endorsers/2608.12166) | Disable MathJax ([What is MathJax?](https://info.arxiv.org/help/mathjax.html))