Making Sense of AI Benefits: A Mixed-method Study in Canadian Public Administration
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.
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 | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".