MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392000919 · doi:10.1108/pr-04-2023-0300

AI and the metaverse in the workplace: DEI opportunities and challenges

2024· article· en· W4392000919 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonnel Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaverseSociologyPsychologyKnowledge managementPublic relationsEpistemologyManagementBusinessPolitical scienceComputer sciencePhilosophyEconomicsHuman–computer interactionVirtual reality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The metaverse, through artificial intelligence (AI) systems and capabilities, allows considerable data analysis in the workplace, largely exceeding traditional people analytics data collection. While concerns over surveillance and issues associated with privacy and discrimination have been raised, the metaverse has the potential to offer opportunities associated with fairer assessment of employee performance and enhancement of the employee experience, especially with respect to gender and race, inclusiveness and workplace equity. This paper aims at shedding light on the diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) opportunities and challenges of implementing the metaverse in the workplace, and the role played by AI. Design/methodology/approach This paper draws on our past research on AI and the metaverse and provides insights addressed to human resources (HR) scholars and practitioners. Findings Our analysis of AI applications to the metaverse in the workplace sheds light on the ambivalent role of and potential trade-offs that may arise with this emerging technology. If used responsibly, the metaverse can enable positive changes concerning the future of work, which can promote DEI. Yet, the same technology can lead to negative DEI outcomes if implementations occur quickly, unsupervised and with a sole focus on efficiencies and productivity (i.e. collecting metrics, models etc.). Practical implications Managers and HR leaders should try to be first movers rather than followers when deciding if (or, better, when) to implement metaverse capabilities in their organizations. But how the metaverse is implemented will be strategic. This involves choices concerning the degree of invasive/pervasive monitoring (internal) as well as make or buy decisions concerning outsourcing AI capabilities. Originality/value Our paper is one among few (to date) that discusses AI capabilities in the metaverse at the intersection of the HR and information systems(IS) literature and that specifically tackles DEI issues. Also, we take a “balanced” approach when evaluating the metaverse from a DEI perspective. While most studies either demonize or celebrate these technologies from an ethical and DEI standpoint, we aim to highlight challenges and opportunities, with the goal to guide scholars and practitioners towards a responsible use of the metaverse in organizations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.413
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.029 · 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