ReviewFrontiers in psychology2026
Algorithmic inclusion? The role of AI-assisted inclusive leadership in shaping gendered outcomes in multicultural academic teams.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Artificial Intelligence (AI) adoption across Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) has gained considerable momentum, and is now being used for faculty recruitment, promotion, workload allocation, research impact evaluation and student assessments. Notwithstanding the objectivity and efficiency that AI brings, its deployment within historically gendered academic institutions raises concerns about the perpetuation and reproduction of structural inequalities. This conceptual paper proposes a governance framework for AI-assisted inclusive leadership focused on gender equality in multicultural teams. AI systems operate within institutional contexts and mediate the relationship between leadership, governance and equity. The paper proposes four institutional solutions; human-in-the-loop deliberation, transparent AI protocols, routine equity audits, and interdisciplinary oversight committees, as mechanisms for mitigating algorithmic bias and enhancing institutional reflexivity. The paper also introduces a four-stage governance maturity framework as an iterative approach to ethical AI inclusion in inclusive leadership of multi-cultural teams. The paper argues that only through a strategic thought-leadership approach to AI inclusion in Higher Education Institutions can structural gender inequalities in multicultural teams be addressed through redesigning of productivity metrics, recognition of emotional and invisible labour, and by addressing gender-embeddedness in institutional systems.
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.