AI 中文总结
本文批判年龄验证纯技术视角，基于85篇文献提出年龄保证过程框架，将其视为连接证据、评估、声明与决策的社会技术过程，并揭示问责缺口。
AI 中文摘要
年龄验证通常被视为一个技术问题：系统能否准确确定儿童的年龄？我们认为这种框架过于狭窄。当证据被评估、转化为与年龄相关的声明，并用于决定一个人是否可以访问、购买或归属时，年龄保证就变得具有重大影响。我们回顾了2020年至2026年2月期间发表的85篇关于儿童年龄保证的出版物。我们发现，诸如年龄验证之类的共享术语描述了不同的过程。年龄被表示为阈值资格或推断估计，并且相同的资格声明可能源于不同的证据和组件。权利、访问和隐私比准确性、错误和公平性受到更多关注；然而，机构行为者很少与系统故障或用户补救措施相关联，这是一个问责缺口。我们引入了年龄保证过程框架，该框架将年龄保证视为连接证据、评估、声明和决策的社会技术过程，而不是将其简化为技术问题。
英文摘要
Age verification is often treated as a technical problem: can a system determine a child's age accurately? We argue this framing is too narrow. Age assurance becomes consequential when evidence is evaluated, translated into age-related claims, and used to decide whether a person can access, purchase, or belong. We review 85 publications on children's age assurance published from 2020 through February 2026. We find that shared terms such as age verification describe different processes. Age is represented as threshold eligibility or inferred estimation, and the same eligibility claim can arise from different evidence and components. Rights, access, and privacy receive more attention than accuracy, error, and fairness; yet institutional actors are rarely connected to system failures or user remedies, an accountability gap. We introduce the Age-Assurance Process Framework, which treats age assurance as a sociotechnical process connecting evidence, evaluation, claims, and decisions rather than reducing it to a technical problem.
