MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404599725 · doi:10.1108/rmj-08-2023-0041

Artificial intelligence and records management in contemporary organizations: what cultural aspects are required? Insights from the information culture framework (ICF)

2024· article· en· W4404599725 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRecords Management Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicKnowledge Management and Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnowledge managementRecords managementOrganizational cultureEngineering ethicsSociologyBusinessManagement scienceData scienceEngineeringComputer sciencePolitical sciencePublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This study aims to examine how artificial intelligence can be effectively integrated into records management practices by identifying the key cultural aspects that should be aligned with the prerequisites of automation. The author also discusses the new roles that are to be played by records managers in this context. Design/methodology/approach To identify those cultural aspects, the author has used the Information culture framework (ICF) developed by Oliver and Foscarini (2020). For each of the three levels of the ICF (i.e. visible, intermediate and invisible), the author has analyzed the cultural aspects serving as the prerequisites of AI for records management purposes. Findings The results of our theoretical reflection reveal that for AI features to be integrated into records management practices, many cultural aspects are to be taken into consideration. AI-powered technologies use, collaboration practices and horizontal communication are some visible cultural aspects contemporary organizations should have in place to meet the requirements of automation. Furthermore, policies and strategies should define automation purposes, identify actors that will be involved in records management practices and describe their respective roles. Finally, attention should be given to individual perceptions and personal traits to ensure that AI technologies are embraced by organizational actors. All those aspects should support the development of a common AI-related language in the organization and influence the extent to which actors trust AI-powered technologies. In this context of automation, records managers will have to assume new roles in change management and promoting information competencies, to assess organizations’ readiness to integrate AI into its records management practices and make the appropriate use of it. Originality/value To the best of the author’s knowledge, this study is the first to use the ICF model suggested by Oliver and Foscarini (2020) to identify the main cultural aspects to target for the effective use of AI in records management practices. Furthermore, the author confirmed the relevance of the expression “augmented records management”, referring to AI-assisted records management practices in contemporary organizations, by highlighting the fact that AI will not replace human work but can, rather, be used as a tool to support it.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.256 · 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