From the wave-0 evidence ledger
Recorded claims
Each claim states what the inspected source says, at the recorded location—bounded by its scope and graded by its confidence. Nothing here is a synthesis across works.
The chapter reports that AI can improve some dimensions of job quality and worker satisfaction, but workers subject to algorithmic management are among the least positive and report concerns about pace, intensity, privacy, and autonomy.
Scope: Broad AI and surveyed workplaces before widespread current GenAI; effect direction varies.
Worker consultation, training, and bargaining institutions appear repeatedly as transition conditions in the chapter, but the available evidence does not supply a universal causal effect size for any one participation mechanism.
Scope: Workplace transition and job quality across OECD settings.
Boundaries
Limitations & independence
Recorded at coding time, carried with the work forever. A claim without its limits is not evidence.
Recorded limitations
- Much underlying evidence is cross-sectional/self-reported
- Broad AI rather than current GenAI only
- Country, worker, and tool heterogeneity
- Synthesis cannot convert associations into causal effects
Source independence
OECD synthesis of employer/worker surveys and literature; independent of a single vendor but dependent on heterogeneous underlying designs.