Epistemic Justice-Aware Checklist Learning an Adaptive and Auditable Governance Framework for Bias and Fairness in Generative AI Curriculum Design

References

[1] Yarkor Y, Sarpong A, Amponsah S, et al. A systematic review of ethical integration of generative AI in higher education. Educ Sci. 2026.

[2] García-López I, Trujillo-Liñán L. Ethical and regulatory challenges of generative AI in education: a systematic review. Front Educ. 2025.

[3] Yang Z, Wider W, Wu C, Ab Jamil N, Jiang L, et al. Toward ethical governance of generative artificial intelligence in higher education: a Delphi study of key dimensions and priorities. Cogent Educ. 2026.

[4] Abu S, Uddin M, Moon J, Awoyemi I, et al. Human-centered generative AI in education: ethical challenges and equity-driven solutions. Ethics Behav. 2026.

[5] Wong J, Tang W, Wong H, Ng H. From principles to practice: an operational framework for equitable artificial intelligence in educational assessment. TechTrends. 2026.

[6] Evangelista E, Bukhari S. From ethical principles to executable governance: a policy-as-code framework for trustworthy AI in higher education. Comput Educ Artif Intell. 2026.

[7] Chen T, Kornblith S, Norouzi M, Hinton G. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In: Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning. 2020. p. 1597–607.

[8] He K, Fan H, Wu Y, Xie S, Girshick R. Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual representation learning. In: 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 2020. p. 9729–38.

[9] Reimers N, Gurevych I. Sentence-BERT: sentence embeddings using Siamese BERT-networks. In: Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP). 2019. p. 3982–92.

[10] Ramaswamy V, Kim S, et al. Fair attribute classification through latent space de-biasing. In: 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 2021.

[11] Cai J, Zhu F. Mitigate discrimination caused by data bias: learning fair representations with information reinforcement via recurrent encoding. Expert Syst Appl. 2026.

[12] Chawla N, Bowyer K, Hall L, et al. SMOTE: synthetic minority over-sampling technique. J Artif Intell Res. 2002;16:321–57.

[13] Saleem M, Javeed A, Akarathanawat W, et al. Uncertainty-aware evidential deep learning for reliable stroke detection and clinical decision support. Complex Intell Syst. 2026.

[14] Meinert N, Gawlikowski J, Lavin A. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep evidential regression. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2023.

[15] Liu B, Rony J, Galdran A, Dolz J, et al. Class adaptive network calibration. In: 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 2023.

[16] Liu T, Wang S, Preoţiuc-Pietro D, et al. Calibrating LLMs for text-to-SQL parsing by leveraging sub-clause frequencies. In: Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2025.

[17] Krishnakumar A. Active learning literature survey. Technical report. Santa Cruz: University of California; 2007.

[18] Hinke T. Query by committee. 1991.

[19] Bellamy R, Dey K, Hind M, et al. AI Fairness 360: an extensible toolkit for detecting and mitigating algorithmic bias. IBM J Res Dev. 2019.

[20] Pessach D, Shmueli E. A review on fairness in machine learning. ACM Comput Surv. 2022.

[21] Squires J. The impossibility of fairness. In: What’s Fair? 2018.

[22] Yeung K. ‘Hypernudge’: big data as a mode of regulation by design. In: The Social Power of Algorithms. 2019.

[23] Freire C, Desai N. Bridging ethics and regulation: a conceptual framework for governing generative AI in higher education. Rev Hambatu Sci. 2026.

[24] Pramanik S. Human-AI collaboration in pedagogy and ethical assessment in GenAI-integrated education: learning analytics with privacy by design. In: Navigating Ethical and Quality Assurance Challenges for Quality and Integrity in Global Higher Education. 2027.

[25] Higgins I, Matthey L, Pal A, Burgess C, Glorot X, et al. beta-VAE: learning basic visual concepts with a constrained variational framework. In: International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). 2017.

[26] Emerson T, Myers A, Scullen S, et al. Disentanglement by prediction: a twin autoencoder with a factored latent traveler. In: Topology, Algebra, and Geometry in Machine Learning. 2026.

[27] Vinovskis M. Overseeing the nation’s report card: the creation and evolution of the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). ERIC; 2001.

@article{1724282,
      author = {Anjana Pareek},
      title = {Epistemic Justice-Aware Checklist Learning an Adaptive and Auditable Governance Framework for Bias and Fairness in Generative AI Curriculum Design},
      journal = {Iconic Research And Engineering Journals},
      year = {2026},
      volume = {10},
      number = {4},
      pages = {4107-4124},
      issn = {2456-8880},
      url = {https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1724282.pdf},
      abstract = {Generative AI increasingly participates in curriculum design, yet the resulting syllabi, learning outcomes, and assessments may reproduce subtle epistemic injustices that existing governance instruments fail to detect. We propose an adaptive and auditable framework that learns a bias and fairness checklist for generative AI curriculum artifacts rather than treating such a checklist as a static set of rules. The proposed method encodes curriculum texts into two disentangled latent subspaces, one capturing pedagogical utility and the other capturing epistemic justice violations, through a contrastive objective combined with intersectional adversarial debiasing. A psychometric utility-preserving penalty constrains this separation so that debiasing does not degrade instructional quality. Each checklist item is then evaluated by an evidential deep learning head that outputs a Dirichlet distribution over compliance states, hence yielding calibrated violation probabilities and explicit uncertainty estimates. An uncertainty-aware routing mechanism subsequently directs low-confidence drafts to a Faculty Expert Panel, whose decisions and justification notes are returned to a fine-tuning dataset. This feedback loop updates the checklist definitions and model weights iteratively, therefore allowing the governance instrument to adapt to newly identified forms of subtle bias. The main contribution is a mathematically grounded pipeline that couples representation disentanglement, evidential uncertainty quantification, and human expert feedback within a single auditable process. For curriculum governance, the framework offers transparent violation probabilities, traceable expert interventions, and a documented evolution of fairness criteria, which together support accountability in generative AI-assisted educational design.},
      keywords = {epistemic justice; generative artificial intelligence; algorithmic bias and fairness; adaptive curriculum design; AI governance and auditing},
      month = {October},
  }