Artificial Intelligence: The Attitude of the Public and Representatives of Various Industries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper looks at public and business attitudes towards artificial intelligence, examining the main factors that influence them. The conceptual model is based on the technology–organization–environment (TOE) framework and was tested through analysis of qualitative and quantitative data. Primary data were collected by a public survey with a questionnaire specially developed for the study and by semi-structured interviews with experts in the artificial intelligence field and management representatives from various companies. This study aims to evaluate the current attitudes of the public and employees of various industries towards AI and investigate the factors that affect them. It was discovered that attitude towards AI differs significantly among industries. There is a significant difference in attitude towards AI between employees at organizations with already implemented AI solutions and employees at organizations with no intention to implement them in the near future. The three main factors which have an impact on AI adoption in an organization are top management’s attitude, competition and regulations. After determining the main factors that influence the attitudes of society and companies towards artificial intelligence, recommendations are provided for reducing various negative factors. The authors develop a proposition that justifies the activities needed for successful adoption of innovative technologies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it