From the hash-bound evidence releases
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 abstract reviews algorithmic hiring across several disciplines and proposes algorithmically mediated inequality regimes to explain how AI may conceal and reproduce inequality in organizational hiring.
Scope: abstract-level multidisciplinary review
The review explains how AI-mediated recruitment can conceal or reproduce organizational inequalities and frames responsibility across research, policy, and practice.
Scope: abstract-level
Structured relationships
In-corpus citations
Only source-supplied cites relationships whose two endpoints are admitted are shown. Invocation evidence remains a separate relationship.
Cites (5)
- Algorithmic governmentality and the space of ethics: Examples from ‘People Analytics’
- Algorithms at Work: The New Contested Terrain of Control
- When eliminating bias isn’t fair: Algorithmic reductionism and procedural justice in human resource decisions
- A multilevel review of artificial intelligence in organizations: Implications for organizational behavior research and practice
- Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation-Augmentation Paradox
Cited by (0)
No in-corpus incoming citation is available in the current enrichment coverage.
Boundaries
Limitations & independence
Recorded at coding time, carried with the work forever. A claim without its limits is not evidence.
Recorded limitations
- Abstract-level evidence only; no full text inspected
- SAGE public DOI-page probes returned HTTP 403 during the lane, so claims rely on retained Crossref publisher-deposited metadata
- Crossref metadata only; full text was not inspected.
- The publisher surface was not queried after the lane’s quarantined dynamic-challenge response; no independent publisher-page verification was attempted.
Source independence
publisher-only