Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose a taxonomy of artificial intelligence (AI) literacy to support AI literacy education and research. Design/methodology/approach This study makes use of the facet analysis technique and draws upon various sources of data and information to develop a taxonomy of AI literacy. The research consists of the following key steps: a comprehensive review of the literature published on AI literacy research, an examination of well-known AI classification schemes and taxonomies, a review of prior research on data/information/digital literacy research and a qualitative and quantitative analysis of 1,031 metadata records on AI literacy publications. The KH Coder 3 software application was used to analyse metadata records from the Scopus multidisciplinary database. Findings A new taxonomy of AI literacy is proposed with 13 high-level facets and a list of specific subjects for each facet. Research limitations/implications The proposed taxonomy may serve as a conceptual AI literacy framework to support the critical understanding, use, application and examination of AI-enhanced tools and technologies in various educational and organizational contexts. Practical implications The proposed taxonomy provides a knowledge organization and knowledge mapping structure to support curriculum development and the organization of digital information. Social implications The proposed taxonomy provides a cross-disciplinary perspective of AI literacy. It can be used, adapted, modified or enhanced to accommodate education and learning opportunities and curricula in different domains, disciplines and subject areas. Originality/value The proposed AI literacy taxonomy offers a new and original conceptual framework that builds on a variety of different sources of data and integrates literature from various disciplines, including computing, information science, education and literacy research.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".