AI Exposure and the Impact on Work

Purpose

Your scoping review should map and synthesize the literature that fits your chosen project type. The goal is to identify the main factors, organize them into a clear framework, and show how the framework can be used.

Submission: Maximum length: four pages in double column ACM format. References and appendix do not count toward the four-page limit.

What the scoping review must do

• Address one chosen project type only.
• Synthesize evidence at a general level.
• Identify and organize the main factors.
• Explain what is known, and where the gaps are.
• Include a short worked use case that applies the framework to your chosen profession.

Minimum evidence requirements

• 15 to 25 sources in total.
• At least eight empirical sources (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods).
• At least three credible practice sources, such as standards bodies, professional associations, major policy reports, or respected industry research.
• Default time window: 2015 to the present. You may use older sources if they are foundational, but you must explain why.

Method transparency requirements

Your appendix must include the following:

• Databases or search engines used.
• Dates searched.
• Search strings or keywords.
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
• Screening process.
• Coding scheme (how you grouped the factors).

This is a scoping review, not a full systematic review.

Methodology

• Clearly report your search strategy (databases, queries, timeframe).
• Refine search strings and explicitly describe the screening process (N → N–M papers).
• State inclusion/exclusion criteria in the main text.
• Include a PRISMA-ScR flow diagram (main paper or appendix).
• Ensure the paper has at least Methods and Results sections (Intro optional).

Literature

• Expand your review to up to ~50 citations.
• Ensure sources are relevant, recent, and justified.
• Format references in ACM style.

Framework

• Clarify key concepts (e.g., “weighted performance”) with concrete logic or examples.
• Reduce overlap between dimensions.
• Integrate human, behavioral, and ethical factors.

Use Case

• Make it concrete (specific tasks, decisions, trade-offs).
• Avoid repeating the framework; demonstrate its application.

Structure & Writing

• Include Abstract and Conclusion.
• Balance sections (less use case, more methods/results).
• Improve clarity, reduce repetition, fix language issues.
• Add critical comparison of sources (not only summaries).

Visuals

• Add a framework diagram.
• Add a PRISMA flowchart.
• Include at least one summary table.

Generality

• Keep the framework domain-agnostic.
• Move domain-specific content to the use case.

Max 6 pages

Must be self-contained — grading will not rely on appendices.

Reference list

Full reference list, formatted in ACM style.

Team & supporting material

• Team members (names + emails) and team name.
• Link to a ZIP archive containing your supporting material.

A single CSV file

One row = one paper. Columns should include, at minimum:

• Paper ID
• Title
• Authors
• Year
• Source (journal / conference / report)
• Inclusion/exclusion decision
• Key variables used in your coding (e.g., trust factors, themes, dimensions)
• Any scores, labels, or categories used in your framework

In short: this file should contain all the data behind your tables, figures, and framework.

A readme.txt file

• Explain what each column in the CSV means.
• Describe how the coding was performed.
• Define any abbreviations or labels used.
• Explain how someone could reproduce your analysis (at a high level).

Additional materials

Other materials used in your process, such as Excel files, scripts, or LaTeX source files.

Your ZIP should allow someone to

• Understand how you selected papers.
• See how you coded them.
• Reproduce your tables, figures, and framework logic.

Purpose

You will review another team’s scoping review and give feedback that could improve it.

Submission: Maximum length: one page.

What your peer review must include

• Top strengths (no more than three bullet points).
• Top weaknesses (no more than three bullet points).
• At least five actionable improvements. State what should change and why.
• Your review could focus on a judgment on whether the scoping review is general and transferable, whether it stays aligned with its chosen project type, or whether its use case shows real application.

Purpose

Using your scoping review as a base, you will co-design a checklist and report. This deliverable turns your review into a usable decision tool.

Submission: Maximum length: four pages in double column ACM format. References and appendix do not count toward the four-page limit.

What you must produce

You must produce a general checklist that fits your chosen type.

• Type 1: Should this AI-exposable task be delegated to AI?
• Type 2: Should this specific AI use augmenting/automating the task be adopted, given the expected risks, benefits, mitigations, and readiness?
• Type 3: Is trust in AI warranted for this task, and how should that trust be calibrated?

The checklist itself must stay general. Use profession-specific content only in the worked use case.

Co-design requirement

You must involve three to six participants drawn from at least two stakeholder groups.

Possible stakeholder groups include:

• Practitioners in the chosen profession.
• Managers or team leads.
• Risk, compliance, or legal staff.
• Technical implementers.
• End users or clients (optional).

Process and appendix

• One workshop (45 to 60 minutes).
• Or three interviews (about 20 minutes each).
• Show iteration: checklist version 1, stakeholder feedback, and checklist version 2 up till checklist version N.

Appendix:

• Interview or workshop guide.
• Checklist version 1.
• Checklist version ...
• Checklist version N
• Anonymized notes (or as zip file whose link is in the appendix).

Build on the review

• Use your scoping review as the base — turn it into a usable decision tool.
• Keep the report aligned with your chosen project type (Type 1, 2, or 3).

Checklist design

• Produce a general checklist that fits your chosen type.
• Keep the checklist itself general and transferable.
• Make items clear, answerable, and actionable.
• Use profession-specific content only in the worked use case.

Co-design process

• Involve three to six participants drawn from at least two stakeholder groups.
• Run either one workshop (45–60 minutes) or three interviews (~20 minutes each).
• Draw participants from practitioners, managers/team leads, risk/compliance/legal staff, technical implementers, or end users/clients.

Show iteration

• Document checklist version 1, the stakeholder feedback, and checklist version 2, up till checklist version N.
• Make the change from v1 to vN visible and traceable to the feedback.

Worked use case

• Demonstrate the checklist applied to your chosen profession.
• Show real application — don't just restate the checklist.

Structure & submission

• Maximum four pages in double-column ACM format.
• References and appendix do not count toward the four-page limit.

Max 6 pages

Four pages in double-column ACM format. References and appendix do not count toward the limit. To establish what a good structure looks like, see Section Methods in the MSR paper and Figure 1 and Section Methods in the Bell Labs paper

Reference list

Full reference list (excluded from the four-page limit).

Co-design materials

• Interview or workshop guide.
• Checklist version 1.
• Checklist version ...
• Checklist version N
• Anonymized notes (either in the Appendix or in a zip file whose link is in the Appendix).

AI Use Disclosure (required in the team appendix)

• Which tools were used.
• How they were used.
• What verification the team performed.
• That team members read and checked all cited sources.

Failure to disclose AI tool use may be treated as a violation of course policy.

Your submission should let a reader

• See how the checklist was co-designed and with whom.
• Trace the iteration from version 1 to version N.
• Judge whether the checklist is usable and truly general.

Purpose

You will review another team’s co-design report and assess both the process and the checklist that resulted from it.

Submission: Maximum length: one page.

What your peer review must include

• Top strengths (no more than three bullet points).
• Top weaknesses (no more than three bullet points).
• At least five actionable improvements.
• Your peer review could assess whether the co-design report shows real iteration (version 1 to version N), and whether the checklist is usable (clear, answerable, and actionable items) and truly general.