Artificial intelligence and the work–health interface: A research agenda for a technologically transforming world of work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The labor market is undergoing a rapid artificial intelligence (AI) revolution. There is currently limited empirical scholarship that focuses on how AI adoption affects employment opportunities and work environments in ways that shape worker health, safety, well-being and equity. In this article, we present an agenda to guide research examining the implications of AI on the intersection between work and health. To build the agenda, a full day meeting was organized and attended by 50 participants including researchers from diverse disciplines and applied stakeholders. Facilitated meeting discussions aimed to set research priorities related to workplace AI applications and its impact on the health of workers, including critical research questions, methodological approaches, data needs, and resource requirements. Discussions also aimed to identify groups of workers and working contexts that may benefit from AI adoption as well as those that may be disadvantaged by AI. Discussions were synthesized into four research agenda areas: (1) examining the impact of stronger AI on human workers; (2) advancing responsible and healthy AI; (3) informing AI policy for worker health, safety, well-being, and equitable employment; and (4) understanding and addressing worker and employer knowledge needs regarding AI applications. The agenda provides a roadmap for researchers to build a critical evidence base on the impact of AI on workers and workplaces, and will ensure that worker health, safety, well-being, and equity are at the forefront of workplace AI system design and adoption.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".