Systematic bibliometric review of artificial intelligence in human resource development: insights for HRD researchers, practitioners and policymakers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Artificial intelligence (AI) is a significant game changer in human resource development (HRD). The launch of ChatGPT has accelerated its progress and amplified its impact on organizations and employees. This study aims to review and examine literature on AI in HRD, using a bibliometric approach. Design/methodology/approach This study is a bibliometric review. Scopus was used to identify studies in the field. In total, 236 papers published in the past 10 years were examined using the VOSviewer program. Findings The obtained results showed that most cited documents and authors are mainly from computer sciences, emphasizing machine learning over human learning. While it was expected that HRD authors and studies would have a more substantial presence, the lesser prominence suggests several interesting avenues for explorations. Practical implications This study provides insights and recommendations for researchers, managers, HRD practitioners and policymakers. Prioritizing the development of both humans and machines becomes crucial, as an exclusive focus on machines may pose a risk to the sustainability of employees' skills and long-term career prospects. Originality/value There is a dearth of bibliometric studies examining AI in HRD. Hence, this study proposes a relatively unexplored approach to examine this topic. It provides a visual and structured overview of this topic. Also, it highlights areas of research concentration and areas that are overlooked. Shedding light on the presence of more research originating from computer sciences and focusing on machine learning over human learning represent an important contribution of this study, which may foster interdisciplinary collaboration with experts from diverse fields, broadening the scope of research on technologies and learning in workplaces.
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 | 0.053 | 0.266 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.163 | 0.173 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".