MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285509375 · doi:10.2196/27250

Strategic Guidance and Technological Solutions for Human Resources Management to Sustain an Aging Workforce: Review of International Standards, Research, and Use Cases

2022· review· en· W4285509375 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ann Kathrin Wissemann, Sabrina Pit, Patrick Serafin, Hansjürgen Gebhardt

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSamsungHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeSiemensUniversity of PatrasKU LeuvenUniversidad Politécnica de MadridEuropean Commission
KeywordsWorkforceBusinessHuman resource managementKnowledge managementProcess managementManagement scienceEngineering ethicsEngineeringComputer scienceEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: New technologies offer opportunities to create a healthy, productive, and capable aging workforce. There is little research from an organizational perspective about how technology can help create a sustainable aging workforce. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to (1) explore how technological solutions in organizations can help create and maintain a healthy, productive, and capable aging workforce; and (2) provide recommendations and strategic guidance that benefit both the aging worker and the organization. METHODS: International standardization practices, ethical frameworks, collaborative research, and use cases are used to demonstrate how technological solutions can be translated into practice and formed the basis for the development of a set of recommendations to create and maintain a sustainable aging workforce. RESULTS: Organizations need to look at aging through different lenses to optimize an age-inclusive workforce rather than viewing it by chronological age alone. International standards in technology, human resources management, and aging societies can form part of the solution to improve aging workforces. Digitalization of workplaces, digital literacy, innovation, intergenerational collaboration, and knowledge management form important elements of the international standard on age-inclusive workforce. Using internationally agreed ethical frameworks that consider age bias when designing artificial intelligence-related products and services can help organizations in their approach. Age bias in artificial intelligence development in the workplace can be avoided through inclusive practices. No blockchain application was found yet to improve the aging workforce. Barriers to blockchain adoption include fear of layoffs, worker resistance and lack of blockchain competence, worldwide adoption, support, and funding. Integrating blockchain into the internet of things may allow for improved efficiencies, reduce cost, and resolve workforce capacity problems. Organizations could benefit from implementing or funding wearable technologies for their workers. Recent tools such as the Ageing@Work toolkit consisting of virtual user models and virtual workplace models allow for the adaptation of the work processes and the ergonomics of workplaces to the evolving needs of aging workers. Lastly, selected use cases that may contribute to sustaining an aging workforce are explored (eg, the Exposure-Documentation-System, wireless biomedical sensors, and digital voice notes). CONCLUSIONS: The synergy of international standardization and ethical framework tools with research can advance information and communication technology solutions in improving aging workforces. There appears to be a momentum that technological solutions to achieve an age-inclusive workforce will undoubtedly find a stronger place within the global context and is most likely to have increased acceptance of technological applications among aging workers as well as organizations and governments. International standardization, cross-country research, and learning from use cases play an important role to ensure practical, efficient, and ethical implementation of technological solutions to contribute to a sustainable aging workforce.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0140.014
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.673
GPT teacher head0.588
Teacher spread0.085 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human FactorsSame topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207