The Intelligent Workplace: AI and Automation Shaping the Future of Digital Workplaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming the modern workplace, offering both opportunities and challenges. This paper explores the complexities of AI-driven digital workplace solutions offerings and its effects on the workforce. Key issues include job displacement, algorithmic bias, and data privacy, which have significant consequences for both individuals and organizations. Using a mixed-methods approach, I gather qualitative insights through interviews and quantitative data from surveys to evaluate employee perceptions of AI's impact on their work.The research proposes a human-centered ethical framework for AI adoption, focusing on fairness, transparency, and accountability. This framework aims to guide organizations in implementing AI in ways that support human workers rather than replace them. Our findings provide practical insights for policymakers, businesses, and researchers to navigate the ethical challenges AI poses in the digital workplace. The goal is to foster trust, promote innovation, and ensure that AI contributes to a future where all stakeholders benefit.
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 | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| 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".