Artificial intelligence adoption and system‐wide change
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
Abstract Analyses of artificial intelligence (AI) adoption focus on its adoption at the individual task level. What has received significantly less attention is how AI adoption is shaped by the fact that organizations are composed of many interacting tasks. AI adoption may, therefore, require system‐wide change, which is both a constraint and an opportunity. We provide the first formal analysis where multiple tasks may be part of an interdependent system. We find that reliance on AI, a prediction tool, increases decision variation, which, in turn, raises challenges if decisions across the organization interact. Reducing inter‐dependencies between decisions softens that impact and can facilitate AI adoption. However, it does this at the expense of synergies. By contrast, when there are mechanisms for inter‐decision coordination, AI adoption is enhanced when there are more inter‐dependencies. Consequently, we show that there are important cases where AI adoption will be enhanced when it can be adopted beyond tasks but as part of a designed organizational system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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