MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394759815 · doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12824

Generative Artificial Intelligence in Business: Towards a Strategic Human Resource Management Framework

2024· article· en· W4394759815 on OpenAlexaff
Soumyadeb Chowdhury, Pawan Budhwar, Geoffrey Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Economy and Work Transformation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnowledge managementHuman resource managementCompetitive advantageHuman resourcesBusinessWorkforceOrchestrationStrategic managementProcess managementComputer scienceManagementMarketingPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As businesses and society navigate the potentials of generative artificial intelligence (GAI), the integration of these technologies introduces unique challenges and opportunities for human resources, requiring a re‐evaluation of human resource management (HRM) frameworks. The existing frameworks may often fall short of capturing the novel attributes, complexities and impacts of GAI on workforce dynamics and organizational operations. This paper proposes a strategic HRM framework, underpinned by the theory of institutional entrepreneurship for sustainable organizations, for integrating GAI within HRM practices to boost operational efficiency, foster innovation and secure a competitive advantage through responsible practices and workforce development. Central to this framework is the alignment with existing business objectives, seizing opportunities, strategic resource assessment and orchestration, re‐institutionalization, realignment and embracing a culture of continuous learning and adaptation. This approach provides a detailed roadmap for organizations to navigate successfully the complexities of a GAI‐enhanced business environment. Additionally, this paper significantly contributes to the theoretical discourse by bridging the gap between HRM and GAI adoption, the proposed framework accounting for GAI–human capital symbiosis, setting the stage for future research to empirically test its applicability, explore its implications on HRM practices and understand its broader economic and societal consequences through diverse multi‐disciplinary and multi‐level research methodologies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.018
Scholarly communication0.0100.005
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations148
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of ManagementSame topicDigital Economy and Work TransformationFrench-language works237,207