MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7055381123

Cultural Challenges And Artificial Intelligence (AI)

2025· article· en· W7055381123 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Association for Information Systems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Design and Applications
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultural intelligenceContext (archaeology)Emerging technologiesInformation technologyIdentification (biology)Corporate governanceCultural diversityHofstede's cultural dimensions theory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence (AI) attracts considerable interest in personal and organizational contexts because it can potentially have many applications, from creating personalized content to redesigning business processes and operations. AI could be the second technological revolution following the advent of mobile phones and could even boost the economic growth of a country (Barker, 2023). That is why we are observing rising momentum in launching new AI strategies across Sub-Saharan African countries that have traditionally lagged in AI governance (Oxford Insights, 2024). Many reasons, including human dimensions (Deloitte, 20222) and cultural factors, influence AI's diffusion, adoption, and success. In the literature on the acceptance of information technology (IT), a few researchers have examined the cultural influence on the acceptance of IT, and the conclusions obtained are not consistent (Yamaguchi, 2023; Ahmed et al., 2023). Furthermore, AI differs from traditional technologies given its unique characteristics, which are reflected in intractability and data-driven, illimitable change capability (Zöll, Eitle, & Hendriks, 2024). AI algorithms developed on a database of a specific culture, then applied in a different culture, can lead to cultural incompatibilities due to ethical preferences, and prior cultural studies have led to the identification of these cultural disparities and nuances (Ellenrieder et al., 2023). Indeed, AIs cannot be transferred from one context to another without prior readjustment. There is a gap in our understanding of the cultural influence on the diffusion and acceptance of such an emerging innovation. Research to address this is essential (Ahmed et al., 2023) as there are challenges regarding using and adopting emerging technologies across cultures (Ellenrieder et al., 2023). This study aims to provide a descriptive analysis of the cultural challenges associated with adopting technological innovations in Sub-Saharan Africa, such as artificial intelligence (AI). Specifically, we will focus on the cultural characteristics that may hinder the successful acceptance and use of AI in this region, which is among the least researched areas of the world. This timely study will make significant contributions by identifying the inhibiting and facilitating factors that influence the successful introduction of AI in Africa.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.039
Scholarly communication0.0120.009
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Association for Information SystemsSame topicLaser Design and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207