Evidence (2066 claims)
Adoption
8570 claims
Productivity
7631 claims
Governance
6869 claims
Human-AI Collaboration
6491 claims
Org Design
4175 claims
Innovation
4114 claims
Labor Markets
3566 claims
Skills & Training
2966 claims
Inequality
2066 claims
Evidence Matrix
Claim counts by outcome category and direction of finding.
| Outcome | Positive | Negative | Mixed | Null | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | 758 | 199 | 100 | 900 | 2007 |
| Governance & Regulation | 826 | 400 | 191 | 122 | 1563 |
| Organizational Efficiency | 777 | 193 | 124 | 84 | 1189 |
| Technology Adoption Rate | 635 | 233 | 124 | 97 | 1098 |
| Research Productivity | 422 | 128 | 57 | 336 | 954 |
| Output Quality | 476 | 179 | 59 | 47 | 761 |
| Decision Quality | 328 | 177 | 81 | 47 | 640 |
| Firm Productivity | 435 | 57 | 88 | 20 | 606 |
| AI Safety & Ethics | 218 | 277 | 65 | 33 | 599 |
| Market Structure | 180 | 170 | 123 | 24 | 502 |
| Task Allocation | 213 | 64 | 72 | 33 | 387 |
| Skill Acquisition | 170 | 61 | 61 | 17 | 309 |
| Innovation Output | 203 | 27 | 43 | 18 | 292 |
| Employment Level | 105 | 54 | 107 | 13 | 281 |
| Fiscal & Macroeconomic | 131 | 69 | 43 | 26 | 276 |
| Consumer Welfare | 117 | 63 | 42 | 11 | 233 |
| Firm Revenue | 153 | 48 | 26 | 3 | 230 |
| Task Completion Time | 173 | 31 | 8 | 12 | 225 |
| Inequality Measures | 44 | 122 | 49 | 6 | 221 |
| Worker Satisfaction | 89 | 65 | 22 | 12 | 188 |
| Error Rate | 69 | 92 | 10 | 2 | 173 |
| Regulatory Compliance | 77 | 69 | 14 | 5 | 165 |
| Automation Exposure | 56 | 56 | 26 | 13 | 154 |
| Training Effectiveness | 94 | 21 | 13 | 19 | 149 |
| Wages & Compensation | 77 | 36 | 25 | 6 | 144 |
| Team Performance | 86 | 17 | 27 | 10 | 141 |
| Developer Productivity | 95 | 17 | 14 | 6 | 133 |
| Job Displacement | 12 | 80 | 20 | 1 | 113 |
| Hiring & Recruitment | 52 | 7 | 8 | 3 | 70 |
| Creative Output | 31 | 18 | 8 | 3 | 61 |
| Skill Obsolescence | 5 | 46 | 6 | 1 | 58 |
| Social Protection | 27 | 16 | 8 | 2 | 53 |
| Labor Share of Income | 17 | 19 | 17 | — | 53 |
| Worker Turnover | 11 | 12 | — | 3 | 26 |
| Industry | — | — | — | 1 | 1 |
Inequality
Remove filter
The study proposes a framework that models recourse as a strategic interaction among candidates under a risk-based selection rule.
The paper introduces a formal/modeling framework (methodological contribution described by the authors).
Actionable recourse studies whether individuals can modify feasible features to overturn unfavorable outcomes produced by AI-assisted decision-support systems.
Definition and framing stated by the authors in the paper's introduction/background (conceptual claim).
No original quantitative dataset or controlled evaluation is reported in this paper.
Methodological description in the paper stating reliance on prior literature, conceptual analysis, and prescriptive recommendations; paper does not present new experiments.
The paper is a position/normative paper (not an empirical study) that uses conceptual analysis, literature synthesis, and prescriptive roadmaping rather than new quantitative experiments or datasets.
Explicit methodological statement in the paper summarizing genre and methods used; absence of reported original data or controlled evaluations.
There is a need for longitudinal and cross‑country empirical research to measure how hybrid work and AI tools affect promotion rates, network centrality, productivity, privacy harms, trust, and long‑term career trajectories.
Statement of research gaps derived from the paper's methodological approach (conceptual synthesis and secondary case studies) and absence of longitudinal/cross‑cultural primary data.
Practical recommendations for firms and policymakers include investing in training for AI curation/evaluation/coordination, experimenting with decentralised decision rights and governance safeguards, and monitoring competitive dynamics related to model/platform providers.
Policy and practitioner takeaways explicitly presented in the discussion/implications sections, deriving from the conceptual framework and mapped literature.
The paper recommends a research agenda for AI economists: causal microeconometric studies (DiD, IVs, RCTs), structural models with hybrid human–AI agents, measurement work on GenAI use, distributional analysis and policy evaluation.
Explicit recommendations listed in the implications and research agenda sections; logical follow‑on from bibliometric findings about gaps in causal and measurement evidence.
Bibliometric mapping profiles the intellectual structure and evolution of the field but does not establish causal effects of GenAI on organisational outcomes.
Methodological limitation explicitly stated in the paper; bibliometric approach (co‑word, citation, thematic mapping) is descriptive and historical in scope.
Co‑word and thematic analyses reveal six coherent conceptual clusters that bridge technical AI topics (e.g., LLMs, GANs) with managerial themes (e.g., autonomy, coordination, decision‑making).
Thematic mapping and co‑word network analysis performed on the 212‑paper corpus; identification of six clusters reported in results.
Bibliometric and conceptual tools (VOSviewer, Bibliometrix) were used to identify performance trends, co‑word structures, thematic maps, and conceptual evolution in the GenAI–organisation literature.
Methods section: use of VOSviewer for network visualization and Bibliometrix for bibliometric statistics, co‑word analysis, thematic mapping and Sankey thematic evolution.
The study analysed a corpus of 212 Scopus‑indexed publications covering 2018–2025 to map emergent literature on Generative AI and organisational change.
Bibliometric dataset constructed from Scopus; sample size = 212 peer‑reviewed articles; time window 2018–2025; analyses performed with Bibliometrix and VOSviewer.
Research agenda: causal studies (panel data, quasi-experiments) are needed to estimate effects of AI exposure on employment outcomes and to evaluate retraining/income-support interventions for pre-retirement populations.
Authors’ stated recommendation based on limits of cross-sectional regression results from the n=889 survey and the identified need to move from association to causation.
Study limitations: cross-sectional design, self-reported intentions, potential unobserved confounders, and limited generalizability to only three cities (Beijing, Guangzhou, Lanzhou).
Explicit methodological statements in the paper describing data and design: cross-sectional survey of 889 respondents from three cities and reliance on self-reported employment intentions.
The methodology is normative-philosophical argumentation supplemented by interdisciplinary synthesis (phenomenology, deconstruction, OOO, STS/material turn); this is not an empirical causal study and contains no quantitative datasets.
Author-declared methods and limits: statement that the intervention is theory-driven and qualitative; absence of quantitative analysis reported.
The paper’s empirical grounding consists of illustrative case studies and vignettes from healthcare robotics, autonomous vehicles, and algorithmic governance used to demonstrate distributed agency and responsibility.
Author-stated methodology: qualitative vignettes/case illustrations across three domains; no reported sample sizes or systematic data collection.
Key measurable metrics for future evaluation include contest frequency and outcomes, time-to-help for different groups, user satisfaction, perceived fairness, incidence of automation bias, and usability/access disparities.
List of proposed metrics in the paper's evaluation agenda.
The paper does not report empirical data; instead it provides a vignette and a proposed evaluation agenda (user studies, field pilots, A/B tests, logs, surveys).
Explicit methodological statement in the Data & Methods section summarised by the authors; factual description of the paper's empirical status.
The pattern provides an outcome-specific, easy-to-use contest channel allowing users to contest particular decisions without renegotiating global rules.
Design element described in the paper and exemplified in the vignette; proposed contest metrics and evaluation agenda but no empirical data.
The pattern requires legibility at the contact point so the robot clearly communicates which active mode is in use and why when deferring or prioritizing.
Design specification and rationale in the paper; supported by the public-concourse vignette; no empirical measurement.
The pattern constrains prioritization to a governance-approved menu of admissible modes, limiting the policy space to vetted options.
Design specification in the paper (architectural requirement); illustrated in the vignette; no empirical testing.
Pilot randomized or quasi-experimental implementations of reduced workweeks (across firms, industries, or regions) are needed to measure effects on employment, productivity, wages, and consumption.
Research-design recommendation motivated by lack of contemporary causal evidence; not an empirical finding but a stated priority for rigorous testing.
There is limited direct causal identification separating technology-driven layoffs from incentive-driven layoffs in current firm-level data, creating a need for new firm-panel datasets linking AI adoption, executive pay/ownership, layoff decisions, and local demand outcomes.
Stated limitation of the paper and research-priority recommendation; assessment based on literature gaps noted in the synthesis rather than empirical gap quantification.
Observed layoffs should be treated in empirical research as outcomes of firm governance and incentive structures; econometric studies estimating displacement from AI must control for managerial incentives and financial pressures.
Methodological recommendation based on the conceptual argument and literature linking governance/incentives to firm behavior; no new empirical demonstration provided.
Research priorities include empirical testing and simulation of ISB-based control systems, cost–benefit analysis of proactive versus reactive AI governance, and distributional impact assessments.
Explicit research agenda proposed by the author (conceptual recommendation), not empirical results.
This work is conceptual/theoretical and reports no original empirical dataset; it explicitly calls for mixed-methods empirical validation (case studies, field experiments, longitudinal studies), measurement development, and multi-level data collection.
Explicit methodological statement in the paper describing its nature as a theoretical synthesis and listing empirical needs; no empirical sample provided.
This research conducts a critical analysis of the ethical implications of artificial intelligence in terms of job displacement during the fifth industrial revolution.
Author-declared methodology: a literature-based critical analysis drawing on novel studies and the existing body of literature; no further methodological details (e.g., inclusion criteria, databases searched) provided in the excerpt.
The study contributes to the literature by integrating evidence across higher education, vocational training, and lifelong learning to emphasize the need for balanced policy approaches to skill formation.
Stated contribution in the paper: cross-pathway synthesis of existing empirical evidence and secondary data (methods described as comparative synthesis; no primary empirical contribution reported in the summary).
The study uses secondary data and comparative evidence from prior empirical studies to analyze relationships between higher education, vocational education, and lifelong learning.
Stated methodology in the paper: analysis of secondary data and synthesis of prior empirical/comparative studies (no primary data collection; no sample sizes reported).
The paper explores risk frameworks, ethical constraints, and policy imperatives related to AI.
Descriptive claim about the paper's analytic content (thematic/policy analysis); no empirical details or measurement approach are given in the abstract.
This paper investigates societal applications of AI across domains such as healthcare, education, accessibility, environmental management, emergency response, and civic administration.
Descriptive statement of the paper's scope and methods (literature review / cross-domain analysis implied); the abstract lists the domains but does not specify empirical procedures or sample sizes.
The paper explains the main legal frameworks that currently regulate AI in India, as well as proposals for future legislation.
Author's legal and policy analysis / document review of existing statutes and proposed laws (qualitative review). No quantitative sample size; based on review of legal texts and policy proposals cited in the article.
A “macro approach” that (1) directly models equilibrium behavior of large employers, (2) combines macro data with empirical estimates of employers’ responses (from the micro approach) to estimate the model, and (3) uses the model to compute aggregate costs of monopsony and optimal policies, is the appropriate methodological response.
Methodological proposal set out by the paper; this is a description of the authors' recommended empirical/theoretical strategy rather than an empirical finding. The excerpt contains no implementation details, datasets, or estimation results.
The traditional theoretical and empirical “micro approach” to studying labor market power requires that firms are small and atomistic.
Conceptual/theoretical characterization of the micro approach stated by the paper; no empirical sample, dataset, or formal model provided in the excerpt.
Social assistance (SA) is defined here as noncontributory social transfers (including cash, vouchers, or in-kind transfers to families or individuals, including the elderly), public works programs, fee waivers, and subsidies.
Explicit definitional statement in the introduction (authors' operational definition for the chapter).
This chapter focuses on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and uses a 'review of reviews' approach to summarize the policy discourse and evidence on social protection and gender in adulthood, concentrating on social assistance, social care, and social insurance.
Methodological and scope statement explicitly given in the introduction (author-declared approach and focus).
This study draws on a critical AI media literacy framework to analyze user-generated discussions in the two largest higher education subreddits on Reddit.com.
Author-reported study design: application of a critical AI media literacy theoretical framework to a qualitative dataset consisting of user-generated discussions from the two largest higher-education subreddits. (Sample size/number of posts/threads not specified in the provided excerpt.)
The study used a mixed-methods design incorporating surveys from 150 LEP immigrants, interviews with 50 employers, and interviews with 20 translation service providers in various linguistically diverse U.S. cities, with quantitative analysis performed in SPSS Version 28 and qualitative thematic coding in NVivo 14.
Reported study design and sample: survey n=150 LEP immigrants; employer interviews n=50; translation provider interviews n=20; analytic software specified as SPSS v28 (quantitative) and NVivo 14 (qualitative).
We extract the Big 5 personality traits from facial images of 96,000 MBA graduates using advances in AI and LinkedIn microdata.
Methodological claim reported in the paper: AI-based model applied to facial images linked to LinkedIn microdata for a sample of 96,000 MBA graduates; extraction yields 'Photo Big 5' trait scores.
The essay reviews seven books from the past dozen years by social scientists examining the economic impact of artificial intelligence (AI).
Qualitative book-review performed by the author; sample size explicitly stated as seven books published within the last ~12 years; method = synthesis/assessment of those seven books.
A composite index capturing concerns about mental health, privacy, climate impact, and labor market disruption was constructed to measure societal risk perceptions of AI.
Author-constructed composite index derived from survey items on mental health, privacy, climate, and labor market disruption concerns in the 2023–2024 UK survey.
This study uses a conceptual and analytical approach to examine the impact of AI and automation on work.
Stated methodology in the paper's abstract/introduction: methodological description that the study is conceptual and analytical; no empirical sample or quantitative data reported.
The paper's findings are based on a combination of literature review, data analysis, and an empirical study involving HR professionals.
Methodological description given in the paper's summary (no further methodological details, sample size, instruments, or statistical methods provided in the summary).
The study draws extensively on contemporary literature in sustainable supply chain management, healthcare procurement, and ESG governance.
Methodological claim about the paper's research approach: literature review/synthesis across the cited domains (bibliographic evidence within the paper).
The paper empirically analyzes the algorithm-automated versus human decision-making debate using the AST and STS theoretical lenses.
Theoretical analysis and empirical synthesis across the reviewed studies (n=85), explicitly stated use of AST and STS frameworks to interpret findings.
To address the duality of benefits and harms, the paper proposes a dynamic Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) model that reconciles algorithmic determinism with normative HRM demands.
Conceptual/theoretical contribution presented in the paper (proposed HITL model based on synthesis of findings and theory).
There is substantial heterogeneity in effects (I^2 = 74%), indicating variability across studies.
Meta-analytic heterogeneity statistic reported in the paper (I^2 = 74%).
The results presented in the paper are based on a literature recherche, an analysis of individual tasks across different occupations (conducted within Erasmus+ projects), and discussions with trainers/educators.
Methodological statement from the paper; indicates the types of evidence used. The abstract does not provide numbers for analyzed tasks, the number of occupations, details of Erasmus+ projects, or counts of trainers/educators consulted.
Research has insufficiently modeled joint distributional outcomes and environmental performance, and lacks integrated evaluation of AI-enabled sustainable finance under heterogeneous disclosure regimes.
Review-level identification of methodological gaps across the surveyed literature (authors' synthesis of existing studies and their limitations).
There is a shortage of long-horizon causal evidence on non-linear coupling between digitalization and decarbonization, limiting robust policy inference.
Meta-level assessment in the review noting gaps in existing empirical literature (review authors' synthesis of the field; claim about research availability rather than primary data).
A Job Digital Intensity Index (JDII) was constructed to capture how digitally intensive jobs are overall, based on the range of digital tasks performed.
Methodological construction described in the report using ESJS digital task items to form a composite JDII.