A Plan for a Joint Study into the Impacts of AI on Professional Competencies of IT Professionals and Implications for Computing Students
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
As Artificial Intelligence (AI) continues to make its presence felt in transforming workplaces around the world, and the Information Technology industry in particular, it is essential to understand its impact on the work practices of IT professionals, and the implications for computing students and curricula. This research project builds on work initiated jointly, in Sweden, New Zealand and Scotland, investigating concerns about the increasing impacts of Artificial Intelligence in IT Sector workplaces for employee work engagement and the implications for tertiary study, assessment and curricula in computing. "Work engagement", has been defined as the positive inner state where employees are fully present and engaged in their work, and is closely linked to motivation, learning, productivity, and accountability. Within the context of (Generative) AI at work, IT professionals have been noted as early adopters of AI. Their involvement in implementing and utilising AI technologies can provide valuable insights into the interplay between AI and work engagement. The implications for students are significant as future IT professionals, who must acquire and enhance competencies to adapt and thrive in digital workplaces.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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