The effects of artificial intelligence on human resource activities and the roles of the human resource triad: opportunities and challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This study analyzes the existing academic literature to identify the effects of artificial intelligence (AI) on human resource (HR) activities, highlighting both opportunities and associated challenges, and on the roles of employees, line managers, and HR professionals, collectively referred to as the HR triad. Methods: We employed the scoping review method to capture and synthesize relevant academic literature in the AI-human resource management (HRM) field, examining 27 years of research (43 peer-reviewed articles are included). Results: Based on the results, we propose an integrative framework that outlines the five primary effects of AI on HR activities: task automation, optimized HR data use, augmentation of human capabilities, work context redesign, and transformation of the social and relational aspects of work. We also detail the opportunities and challenges associated with each of these effects and the changes in the roles of the HR triad. Discussion: This research contributes to the ongoing debate on AI-augmented HRM by discussing the theoretical contributions and managerial implications of our findings, along with avenues for future research. By considering the most recent studies on the topic, this scoping review sheds light on the effects of AI on the roles of the HR triad, enabling these key stakeholders to better prepare for this technological change. The findings can inform future academic research, organizations using or considering the application of AI in HRM, and policymakers. This is particularly timely, given the growing adoption of AI in HRM activities.
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 | 0.047 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".