Making Sense of AI Benefits: A Mixed-method Study in Canadian Public Administration
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 Public administrators receive conflicting signals on the transformative benefits of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the counternarratives of AI’s ethical impacts on society and democracy. Against this backdrop, this paper explores the factors that affect the sensemaking of AI benefits in Canadian public administration. A mixed-method research design using PLS-SEM ( n = 272) and interviews ( n = 38) tests and explains the effect of institutional and consultant pressures on the perceived benefits of AI use. The quantitative study shows only service coercive pressures have a significant effect on perceived benefits of AI use and consultant pressures are significant in generating all institutional pressures. The qualitative study explains the results and highlights the underlying mechanisms. The key conclusion is that in the earlier stages of AI adoption, demand pull is the main driver rather than technology push. A processual sensemaking model is developed extending the theory on institutions and sensemaking. And several managerial implications are discussed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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