Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: A Framework for Systematic Literature Reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human-centered approaches are vital to manage the rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education, where AI-driven applications can reshape teaching, research, and student engagement. This study presents the Human-Centered AI for Systematic Literature Reviews (HCAI-SLR) framework to guide educators and researchers in integrating AI tools effectively. The methodology combines AI augmentation with human oversight and ethical checkpoints at each review stage to balance automation and expertise. An illustrative example and experiments demonstrate how AI supports tasks such as searching, screening, extracting, and synthesizing large volumes of literature that lead to measurable gains in efficiency and comprehensiveness. Results show that HCAI-driven processes can reduce time costs while preserving rigor, transparency, and user control. By embedding human values through constant oversight, trust in AI-generated findings is bolstered and potential biases are mitigated. Overall, the framework promotes ethical, transparent, and robust approaches to AI integration in higher education without compromising academic standards. Future work will refine its adaptability across various research contexts and further validate its impact on scholarly practices.
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 | 0.599 | 0.616 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.075 | 0.038 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".