Human-centred AI in industry 5.0: a systematic review
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
Industry 4.0 (I4.0) is a manufacturing paradigm revolutionising production by integrating advanced technologies, like AI, for automation and data integration. However, research in I4.0 overlooks human factors, crucial for designing systems that enhance well-being, trust, motivation, and performance. To address this, international bodies have introduced Industry 5.0, aiming to balance technological advancement with human welfare. To transition towards this vision, an understanding of current human-technology interaction is essential. Through a conceptual model aiming to understand the psychological experience of workers within their environment, we identified the studied human factors, their antecedents, consequences, and methodologies. Additionally, we explored how future research can adopt a human-centred approach in designing and implementing technology. Analysis of 67 articles showed the psychosocial dimension of human factors like AI trust, worker autonomy, motivation, and stress are underrepresented. We observed a significant disconnect between empirical and non-empirical studies in terms of theoretical frameworks, variable selection, data collection methods, and research designs. Our findings highlight the necessity for experimental, theory-driven research in human-AI interaction, using a multi-method approach including perceptual, observational, and psychophysiological measures. Lastly, we discuss the integration of these findings into managerial practice to foster workplaces that are technologically advanced yet remain empathetic to human needs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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