Research on Trust Mechanism Construction and Risk Governance in Public Policy Communication under the Perspective of Human-Machine Collaboration

Yantong Lin; Yulin Zhao

doi:10.71222/ybgr5j14

Authors

Yantong Lin Faculty of Humanities and Arts, Macau University of Science and Technology, Guangzhou, China Author
Yulin Zhao School of Journalism and Communication, Northwest University of Political and Law, Xi'an, China Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.71222/ybgr5j14

Keywords:

artificial intelligence, public policy, communication, trust, risk governance, transparency

Abstract

With the deep integration of artificial intelligence into the field of public policy communication, the paradigm of human–machine collaboration is profoundly reshaping traditional trust building and risk governance mechanisms. This study aims to explore how collaborative interaction between human actors and intelligent systems affects the credibility, transparency, and public acceptance of policy information. Drawing on theories of communication, governance, and science and technology studies, the paper constructs a theoretical framework that integrates trust mechanism design with risk governance strategies in digitally mediated policy processes. Within this framework, it analyzes optimization paths for enhancing information authenticity, improving algorithmic transparency, and broadening meaningful public participation. Particular attention is paid to how algorithmic decision support, automated content generation, and data-driven targeting influence perceptions of fairness, accountability, and reliability in policy communication. The study further discusses potential risks, including information distortion, opacity of algorithmic logic, and the amplification of bias, and proposes corresponding governance tools such as disclosure norms, oversight mechanisms, and participatory feedback channels. The research findings are expected to provide theoretical support and practical implications for enhancing the efficiency, responsiveness, and legitimacy of policy communication, thereby contributing to the modernization of governance capacity in the intelligent era.

References

1. S. Wachter, B. Mittelstadt, and C. Russell, "Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: Automated decisions and the GDPR," Harv. JL & Tech., vol. 31, p. 841, 2017.

2. T. Mandják and Z. Szántó, "How can economic sociology help business relationship management?," Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 202–208, 2010.

3. D. L. Coleman, A. E. Kazdin, L. A. Miller, J. S. Morrow, and R. Udelsman, "Guidelines for interactions between clinical faculty and the pharmaceutical industry: one medical school’s approach," Academic Medicine, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 154–160, 2006.

4. S. Feizi and M. Médard, "A power efficient sensing/communication scheme: Joint source-channel-network coding by using compressive sensing," in *2011 49th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton)*, pp. 1048–1054, Sep. 2011.

5. C. S. Representativeness, "National surveys via RDD telephone interviewing versus the internet," Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 641–678, 2009.

6. V. Bitzer, J. van Helmsing, A. B. Helmsing, and V. Van Der Linden, "Partnering to facilitate smallholder inclusion in value chains," in Value Chains, Social Inclusion and Economic Development, Routledge, pp. 221–246, 2012.

7. W. B. Knox and P. Stone, "Reinforcement learning from human reward: Discounting in episodic tasks," in *2012 IEEE RO-MAN: The 21st IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication*, pp. 878–885, Sep. 2012.

8. R. N. Knowles, "Self-Organising Leadership: Transparency and Trust," in Management Models for Corporate Social Responsibility, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 134–139, 2006.

9. E. A. Stolk, A. De Bont, A. R. Van Halteren, R. J. Bijlmer, and M. J. Poley, "Role of health technology assessment in shaping the benefits package in the Netherlands," Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 85–94, 2009.

10. W. Naudé and N. Dimitri, "The race for an artificial general intelligence: implications for public policy," AI & Society, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 367–379, 2020.

11. D. Valle-Cruz, J. I. Criado, R. Sandoval-Almazán, and E. A. Ruvalcaba-Gomez, "Assessing the public policy-cycle framework in the age of artificial intelligence: From agenda-setting to policy evaluation," Government Information Quarterly, vol. 37, no. 4, p. 101509, 2020.

12. R. Paul, "Can critical policy studies outsmart AI? Research agenda on artificial intelligence technologies and public policy," Critical Policy Studies, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 497–509, 2022.

13. R. Calo, "Artificial intelligence policy: a primer and roadmap," UCDL Rev., vol. 51, p. 399, 2017.

14. J. M. Sánchez, J. P. Rodríguez, and H. E. Espitia, "Review of artificial intelligence applied in decision-making processes in agricultural public policy," Processes, vol. 8, no. 11, p. 1374, 2020.

15. D. Valle-Cruz, E. Alejandro Ruvalcaba-Gomez, R. Sandoval-Almazan, and J. Ignacio Criado, "A review of artificial intelligence in government and its potential from a public policy perspective," in *Proceedings of the 20th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research*, pp. 91–99, Jun. 2019.

16. S. K. Misra, S. Das, S. Gupta, and S. K. Sharma, "Public policy and regulatory challenges of artificial intelligence (AI)," in International Working Conference on Transfer and Diffusion of IT, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 100–111, Dec. 2020.

17. A. Lauterbach, "Artificial intelligence and policy: quo vadis?," *Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance*, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 238–263, 2019.

18. A. D. Thierer, A. Castillo O'Sullivan, and R. Russell, "Artificial intelligence and public policy," Mercatus Research Paper, 2017.