ArticleAI and ethics2023
Assessing the artificially intelligent workplace: an ethical framework for evaluating experimental technologies in workplace settings.
Article in AI and ethics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interrelationships among age, time horizons, and uncertainty: emotional experiences and workplace learning.Work, aging and retirement · 2025Article
- Psychosocial risks and ethical implications of technology: considerations for decent work.Annals of work exposures and health · 2025Article
- Harnessing AI in Laser Aesthetic Treatments: Revolutionizing Precision, Safety, and Personalization.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Article
- Do you wanna dance? Tales of trust and driving trust factors in robot medication counseling in the pharmacy context.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2024Article
- Neuroethical considerations and attitudes about neurostimulation as a fatigue countermeasure among emergency responders.Frontiers in neuroergonomics · 2024Article
- Applications and implementation of generative artificial intelligence in cardiovascular imaging with a focus on ethical and legal considerations: what cardiovascular imagers need to know!BJR artificial intelligence · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Experimental technologies, including AI and robots, are revolutionising many types of work. For example, the logistics warehouse sector is witnessing a wave of new technologies, such as automated picking tools, collaborative robots and exoskeletons, affecting jobs and employees. Notably, it is not always possible to predict the effects of such new technologies, since they have inherent uncertainties and unintended consequences. Hence, their introduction into workplaces can be conceived as a social experiment. This paper aims to sketch a set of ethical guidelines for introducing experimental technologies into workplaces. It builds on Van de Poel's general framework for assessing new experimental technologies and translates that framework into a more specific context of work. We discuss its five principles: non-maleficence, beneficence, responsibility, autonomy, and justice. Each of these principles is applied to workplaces in general, and specifically to the logistics warehouse setting as a case study. A particular focus in our discussion is put on the distinctive potential harms and goods of work.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.