Enhancing Fairness in HR Recruitment: A Hybrid AI-DSS Model vs. Traditional Methods Evaluated with DIR and EOD Metrics for Effective Recruitment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The implementation of Artificial Intelligence-based Decision Support Systems (AI-DSS) in recruitment has significantly enhanced efficiency; however, concerns regarding algorithmic bias persist. Existing AI-DSS models primarily emphasize explicit data, often neglecting psychological and behavioral factors essential for fair recruitment. This study integrates Person-Job Fit and Person-Organization Fit theories into AI-DSS while employing adaptive learning techniques to mitigate bias. Using a mixed- methods approach with an explanatory sequential design, this research combines quantitative analysis (statistical comparisons of AI-DSS and traditional hiring methods, bias evaluation using fairness metrics) with qualitative insights (interviews with HR professionals and candidates). The findings indicate that AI-DSS improves selection efficiency and candidate performance yet remains susceptible to biases derived from historical data. Adaptive learning enhances fairness; however, ethical concerns about transparency and accountability persist. This research strengthens the AI recruitment debate by suggesting a comprehensive model that balances the operational efficiency, ethical needs, and fair practices. Explaining AI paradigms requires additional research to establish trust and flexibility for AI recruitment systems.
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 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 | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".