发表机构
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Stern College for Women, Yeshiva University（耶什瓦大学斯特恩女子学院化学与生物化学系）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本研究通过编码15个学术访问路径和大学过程追踪，揭示获奖与授权间的缺口，并提出追踪首次使用等指标以区分资源分配与可用基础设施。
AI 中文摘要
学术访问项目将前沿人工智能作为研究基础设施进行分发，但获奖与机构授权是两个不同的阶段。我们通过对2026年9月19日捕获的15个公开记录的访问路径进行结构化编码（其中10个符合预设纳入标准），并在美国一所大学进行过程追踪，来审视这一交接环节。两次独立的模型辅助编码发现，九个项目存在明确的资格标准，整个语料库中有三个隐含的机构先决条件。下游规范较为薄弱：六个项目未说明访问持续时间，七个项目未报告使用或成果指标，五至七个项目未明确责任分配。在八至九个项目中，公开条款未能建立起从获奖到预期使用的明确、独立于机构的路径，这一综合指标包含了可能和模糊的情况。在机构追踪中，政策要求即使对免费工具也要进行审查。一个有限的请求生成了工单，但在观察窗口期内没有实质性回应或决策路径。我们将授权缺口定义为访问获奖与授权研究使用之间的距离。追踪首次使用、许可、首次使用时间及持续性，将有助于项目区分已分配资源与可用科学基础设施。
英文摘要
Academic access programs distribute frontier artificial intelligence as research infrastructure, but awards and institutional authorization are distinct stages. We examine the handoff through structured coding of 15 publicly documented access pathways captured on 19 September 2026, of which ten met prespecified inclusion criteria, and a process trace at one US university. Two isolated model-assisted coding passes found explicit eligibility criteria in nine programs and three implied institutional prerequisites across the corpus. Downstream specification was weaker: access duration was unstated in six programs, seven reported no use or outcome metric, and liability assignment was unstated in five to seven. Public terms did not establish an unambiguous institution-independent path from award to intended use in eight to nine programs, a composite that includes possible and unclear cases. In the institutional trace, policy required review even for free tools. A bounded request generated a ticket but no substantive response or decision pathway during the observation window. We define the authorization gap as the distance between an access award and authorized research use. Tracking first use, clearance, time to first use, and persistence would help programs distinguish allocated resources from usable scientific infrastructure.
Comments13 pages, 3 figures, 2 tables
