Employee and Workforce Adaptation as a Result of Artificial Intelligence Deployment
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
<p>Over the last decade (2010-2020), society saw many technological advancements that significantly impacted our lives and forever changed the world and its perception. Various algorithms are now embedded in our lives and have the ability to drive consumer behaviour. Artificial Intelligence has the advantages of rapidly digesting large volumes of data, exposing trends and patterns utilized for personalization and customization, and achieving the best possible outcome. However, society lacks the understanding of the price that will be paid for the adaptation to new business models. This research investigates the current trends and predictions for labour market changes and their societal impact and provides recommendations aimed at managing and adapting the workforce to the societal changes that resulted from the wide adoption of AI-powered tools. Additionally, this study describes the consequences of AI implementation and its effects on the labour market and outlines the threats of the significant increase in the unemployment rate using qualitative analysis of the secondary data. Recent publications from industry experts are reviewed, and predictions for the labour market are synthesized.</p>
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 | 0.002 |
| 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