Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Socio-Economic Consequences of Generative AI: A Review of Methodological Approaches

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A literature review identifies eight analytical methods—from agent-based simulation to the Delphi method—for predicting the economic and social effects of generative AI, and rates each on uncertainty, robustness, scalability, and resource…

desk verdict A readable orientation table on eight methods for predicting generative AI impacts, but the ratings are asserted rather than derived and the 'Uncertainty' column mixes two meanings. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09313 v1 pith:R44RNP67 submitted 2024-11-14 cs.CY

Carlos J. Costa , Joao Tiago Aparicio , Manuela Aparicio This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CY
keywords generativeAIadoptionpredictionmethodsmethodologyreviewagent-basedsimulationeconometricmodelsDelphimethodscenarioanalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper attempts to establish which research methodologies are best suited for predicting the economic and social consequences of generative AI. It surveys eight approaches—agent-based simulation, econometric models, input-output analysis, reinforcement learning, surveys and interviews, scenario analysis, policy analysis, and the Delphi method—and rates each one on four criteria: handling of uncertainty, robustness, scalability, and resource requirements. The central deliverable is a comparison table that lets decision-makers see at a glance which methods fit different forecasting contexts. The authors argue that no single method is sufficient and that a mixed-method selection, guided by research goals and contextual considerations, gives the most complete picture.

What carries the argument

The central object is an evaluation matrix pairing eight forecasting methods with four operationally defined criteria. Uncertainty measures whether a method acknowledges unpredictable conditions; robustness measures whether results stay consistent across scenarios; scalability measures whether the method can handle large datasets or complex systems; and resource requirements measure computational power, expertise, time, and data needed. Each method is assigned a qualitative rating on a three-level scale—low, moderate, high, with intermediate combinations such as 'moderate to high'—and the resulting Table II carries the paper's argument. The ratings are supported by references to the methods' literature, though the derivation from source to rating is presented in prose rather than as an explicit evidence trail.

What would settle it

Check each row of Table II against the reference cited for it; if, for example, the source cited for an econometric model's moderate robustness rating says nothing about consistency across scenarios, that cell loses its evidentiary basis, and the table as a whole fails if a substantial share of cells lack such support.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's core claim is that these eight established methodologies, taken together, constitute a toolbox for assessing generative AI's socio-economic impacts, and that their differences can be summarized along four evaluative dimensions. Its concrete finding is the rating table (Table II): agent-based models, scenario analysis, and the Delphi method are rated high in uncertainty; surveys and interviews are rated low in scalability; econometric models and input-output analysis sit at moderate levels on most criteria; and resource demands range from low to high depending on the method. These ratings are explicitly framed as a general comparison, with the appropriateness of each approach depending on the specific context and research objectives. The paper concludes that selection among methods, not reliance on any single one, is what ensures comprehensive understanding.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison table is only as solid as the cited sources actually supporting each rating, and the paper does not trace its reasoning from those sources to the specific low, moderate, or high marks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Agent-based modeling is the method of choice when the problem is dominated by uncertainty and the team can afford moderate to high computing resources.
  • Econometric models remain appropriate for data-rich, historically stable contexts, but their moderate uncertainty rating signals they are weaker for unprecedented structural shifts like generative AI adoption.
  • Surveys and interviews are best for capturing stakeholder perceptions, yet their low scalability means they cannot stand alone for large-scale forecasting.
  • Scenario analysis and the Delphi method are the recommended routes under high uncertainty, provided scenario quality and expert bias are actively managed.
  • A mixed-method design follows from the ratings, since quantitative models and expert-based techniques cover complementary weaknesses.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The rating table could be turned into a decision checklist: start from the level of uncertainty a research question expects, then filter methods by acceptable resource cost and scalability.
  • Adding a fifth criterion, such as data availability or transparency of assumptions, would likely reshuffle the lower-ranked methods and is a natural extension of the framework.
  • An empirical validation study—applying two or three of the rated methods to the same generative-AI adoption question and comparing forecast accuracy—would test whether the qualitative ratings predict real-world performance.
  • The comparison implies that fast-moving technologies may push forecasters away from purely historical econometrics and toward simulation and expert-consensus approaches.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reviews eight methodologies (Agent-Based Modeling, Econometric Models, Input-Output Analysis, Reinforcement Learning, Surveys and Interviews, Scenario Analysis, Policy Analysis, and the Delphi Method) for predicting the socio-economic impacts of generative AI adoption. Its central contribution is Table II, which rates each method on uncertainty, robustness, scalability, and resource requirements, together with narrative justifications in Section IV and conclusions in Section V about each method's suitability. The paper claims these ratings reveal the approaches' strengths and weaknesses and their adequacy in coping with uncertainty, robustness, and resource requirements.

Significance. If the comparative ratings were rigorously grounded, the paper could be a useful orientation for researchers and policymakers selecting methods for generative-AI impact analysis. The strengths include coverage of a diverse set of methods and citation of many relevant methodological sources. However, the central deliverable, Table II, is asserted without a transparent systematic review protocol, and the 'Uncertainty' ratings conflate a method's intrinsic uncertainty with its capacity to handle uncertainty. As a result, the abstract's claim about 'adequacy in coping with uncertainty' is not currently supported. The paper would need substantial revision to make the ratings reproducible and internally consistent.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Table II] The 'Uncertainty' ratings are internally inconsistent. Section III defines the criterion as 'a method's ability to acknowledge and handle high levels of uncertainty or unpredictability,' with 'High' described as methods that 'often involve subjective judgments, assumptions, or scenarios that may vary widely.' Section IV assigns 'High' to ABM, Scenario Analysis, and Delphi because they rely on subjective judgments or assumptions, which rates the method's own uncertainty rather than its ability to cope with external uncertainty. Section V then treats the same 'High' rating as a strength for ABM ('particularly apt for scenarios characterized by high uncertainty') and Delphi ('adeptly manages high uncertainty') but as a limitation for Scenario Analysis ('although with a high level of uncertainty'). This ambiguity undermines the central claim in the abstract about 'adequacy in coping with uncertainty.' The authors must either separate 'method's intrinsic uncertainty' from 'capacity to handle external uncertainty' or define and apply a single consistent interpretation across all rows.
  2. [Section IV, Table II] The ratings in Table II are asserted without a systematic review protocol or an evidence trail linking each ordinal rating to the cited references. The narrative provides one sentence per rating with a citation, but there is no explanation of how the three-level scale was derived, no inclusion/exclusion criteria for sources, no coding scheme, no sensitivity analysis, and no inter-rater reliability check. Several citations are generic methodological references (e.g., [8] for RL robustness, [13] for RL adaptability) and do not by themselves justify a specific ordinal level. Because Table II is the concrete deliverable of the paper, this lack of transparency makes the central comparison non-reproducible. The authors should provide a detailed evidence table mapping each rating to specific supporting statements with page or section numbers, and ideally report sensitivity to alternative judgments.
  3. [Section III, Methodology] The evaluation framework is justified using [24]–[26] and [49], but [49] is the authors' own previous work and is cited as the source for the criteria themselves. The mixed-methods citations ([24]–[26]) advocate for mixed-methods research generally and do not specifically define the four evaluation criteria. The link between these references and the chosen criteria (uncertainty, robustness, scalability, resource requirements) is not established. This matters because the entire Table II rests on these criteria. The authors should either cite foundational literature for each criterion or explain how the criteria were derived from the review process.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states 'we uncover a range of methodologies' and claims a 'comprehensive literature review,' but the paper does not describe a systematic search strategy, inclusion criteria, or a PRISMA-style flow diagram; the selection of eight methods appears discretionary.
  2. [References, [19]] The reference list entry for [19] has extraneous text appended: 'M. Young, The Technical Writer's Handbook. Mill Valley, CA: University Science, 1989.' This appears to be a citation error and should be removed or properly formatted.
  3. [Fig. 1] Figure 1 is referenced in Section II but is not described or explained in the text; the figure caption 'Methods' is too terse, and the figure itself is not reproduced in the provided text, making it impossible to assess its content.
  4. [Section IV] The narrative ratings in Section IV use inconsistent wording for the same scale levels, such as 'moderate to high' (ABM scalability) versus 'low to moderate' (econometric scalability); a consistent ordinal notation (e.g., a defined 3- or 5-point scale) would improve clarity.
  5. [Section II] The sentence 'They are synthesizing insights gleaned from these methodologies' is grammatically incomplete; it should be 'They synthesize insights gleaned from these methodologies' or similar.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the paper is a qualitative literature review and its Table II ratings rest on external citations, with only a minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

This paper is a methodological literature review, not a derivation with fitted parameters or equations. Its central deliverable, Table II, assigns qualitative ratings for uncertainty, robustness, scalability, and resource requirements to eight methods. Each rating is justified by external references (e.g., [21], [28], [29], [30], [11], [8], [33], [34], [5], [36], [37], [38], [13], [14], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [40], [39], [35], [32], [31], [23], [19], [27], [18]) rather than by the paper's own equations or prior results. There is no fitted input renamed as a prediction, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz smuggled in through self-citation. The authors do cite their own prior work, most notably [49], in Section II and Section III for the generic claim that the choice of method depends on research questions, available data, and system complexity. This self-citation is not load-bearing: the set of eight methods is also grounded in external references [1-19], and Table II's ratings are not derived from [49]. A separate editorial concern is that the 'Uncertainty' column in Table II conflates a method's own level of uncertainty with its ability to cope with external uncertainty; for example, ABM, Scenario Analysis, and the Delphi Method are rated 'High' because they involve subjective judgments or assumptions, which matches the rubric's 'High' descriptor but not the stated criterion of 'ability to acknowledge and handle' uncertainty. That is an internal-validity problem, not a circularity problem, because no rating is constructed by definition from the claimed finding. Overall, the central claim has independent content, and the only self-referential element is minor and not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes a qualitative comparison but relies on the assumptions that the method list is complete, the ratings are accurate, and the criteria are appropriate.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The eight selected methodologies constitute a comprehensive set for assessing generative AI impacts.
    The paper asserts comprehensiveness without a systematic search or inclusion criteria; the selection appears based on the authors' prior knowledge.
  • domain assumption The cited references support the specific ratings in Table II.
    The paper does not map citations to ratings; many references are general textbooks that may not address generative AI directly.
  • ad hoc to paper The evaluation criteria (uncertainty, robustness, scalability, resource requirements) are well-defined and sufficient for comparing methods.
    The authors introduce these criteria for this review without external validation or a formal framework.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Socio-Economic Consequences of Generative AI: A Review of Methodological Approaches." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R44RNP67

@misc{pith2026241109313,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Socio-Economic Consequences of Generative AI: A Review of Methodological Approaches},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R44RNP67}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09313}
}
read the original abstract

The widespread adoption of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has fundamentally transformed technological landscapes and societal structures in recent years. Our objective is to identify the primary methodologies that may be used to help predict the economic and social impacts of generative AI adoption. Through a comprehensive literature review, we uncover a range of methodologies poised to assess the multifaceted impacts of this technological revolution. We explore Agent-Based Simulation (ABS), Econometric Models, Input-Output Analysis, Reinforcement Learning (RL) for Decision-Making Agents, Surveys and Interviews, Scenario Analysis, Policy Analysis, and the Delphi Method. Our findings have allowed us to identify these approaches' main strengths and weaknesses and their adequacy in coping with uncertainty, robustness, and resource requirements.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Heterogeneous Agents in the Data Economy

    econ.TH 2025-09 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    Heterogeneous data-investment ability is claimed to raise output, data scale, productivity, and borrowing access, but the borrowing-access result comes from an equation that is an identity in disguise.

  2. Ethics and Artificial Intelligence Adoption

    cs.CY 2024-11 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    Seven of the nine stated hypotheses were supported, with attitude toward ethical behavior predicting AI use and social influence showing no significant effect in a PLS-SEM analysis of 237 survey responses.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [8]

    Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction,

    R. S. Sutton and A. G. Barto, "Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction," MIT Press, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [13]

    Reinforcement learning: A survey,

    L. P. Kaelbling, M. L. Littman, and A. W. Moore, "Reinforcement learning: A survey," Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol. 4, pp. 237-285, 1996

    work page 1996

  3. [24]

    Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come,

    R. B. Johnson and A. J. Onwuegbuzie, "Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come," Educational Researcher, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 14-26, 2004

    work page 2004

  4. [26]

    J. W. Creswell, Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Pub. 2009

    work page 2009

  5. [49]

    Design Science in Information Systems and Computing,

    J. T. Aparicio, M. Aparicio, and C. J. Costa, “Design Science in Information Systems and Computing,” in Proceedings of International Conference on Information Technology and Applications , vol. 614, S. Anwar, A. Ullah, Á. Rocha, and M. J. Sousa, Eds., in Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol. 614. , Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2023, pp. 409...

    doi:10.1007/978-981-19-9331-2_35 2023

  6. [1]

    Axelrod, The Complexity of Cooperation: Agent -Based Models of Competition and Collaboration, Princeton University Press, 1997 https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7s951

    R. Axelrod, The Complexity of Cooperation: Agent -Based Models of Competition and Collaboration, Princeton University Press, 1997 https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7s951

    work page 1997

  7. [2]

    Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems,

    E. Bonabeau, "Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 99, no. Supplement 3, pp. 7280-7287, 2002

    work page 2002

  8. [3]

    J. M. Epstein and R. Axtell, Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science from the Bottom Up MIT Press, 1996

    work page 1996

Show all 56 references
  1. [4]

    W. H. Greene, Econometric Analysis Pearson, 2018

    2018

  2. [5]

    Input -output analysis: Foundations and extensions,

    R. E. Miller and P. D. Blair, "Input -output analysis: Foundations and extensions," Cambridge University Press, 2009

    2009

  3. [6]

    Input -output analysis and the WTO: Trade policy and international business,

    R. Rasiah, "Input -output analysis and the WTO: Trade policy and international business," Edward Elgar Publishing, 2004

    2004

  4. [7]

    Introduction to Econometrics,

    J. H. Stock and M. W. Watson, "Introduction to Econometrics," Pearson, 2019

    2019

  5. [9]

    Handbook of Computational Economics: Agent-Based Computational Economics,

    L. Tesfatsion and K. L. Judd, "Handbook of Computational Economics: Agent-Based Computational Economics," Elsevier, 2006

    2006

  6. [10]

    NetLogo,

    U. Wilensky, "NetLogo," Center for Connected Learning and Computer- Based Modeling, Northwestern University, 1999

    1999

  7. [11]

    J. M. Wooldridge, Introductory econometrics: A modern approach . Nelson Education, 2016

    2016

  8. [12]

    Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method,

    D. A. Dillman, J. D. Smyth, and L. M. Christian, "Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method," Wiley, 2014

    2014

  9. [14]

    Human -level control through deep reinforcement learning,

    V. Mnih et al., "Human -level control through deep reinforcement learning," nature, vol. 518, no. 7540, pp. 529-533, 2015

    2015

  10. [15]

    Induction: Processes of Inference, Learning, and Discovery,

    J. H. Holland, K. J. Holyoak, R. E. Nisbett, and P. R. Thagard, "Induction: Processes of Inference, Learning, and Discovery," MIT Press, 2018

    2018

  11. [16]

    Scenarios: Uncharted Waters Ahead,

    P. Wack, "Scenarios: Uncharted Waters Ahead," Harvard Business Review, vol. 63, no. 5, pp. 73-89, 1985

    1985

  12. [17]

    A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem Solving,

    E. Bardach and E. M. Patashnik, "A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem Solving," CQ Press, 2021

    2021

  13. [18]

    An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts,

    N. C. Dalkey and O. Helmer, "An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts," Management Science, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 458- 467, 1963

    1963

  14. [19]

    The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: Issues and analysis,

    G. Rowe and G. Wright, "The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: Issues and analysis," International Journal of Forecasting, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 353 -375, 1999.M. Young, The Technical Writer's Handbook. Mill Valley, CA: University Science, 1989

    1999

  15. [20]

    Quantitative Input and Output Relations in the Economic System of the United States,

    W. W. Leontief, "Quantitative Input and Output Relations in the Economic System of the United States," Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 105–125, Aug. 1936. doi: 10.2307/1927837

    1936 doi

  16. [21]

    Epstein, Generative Social Science, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007

    J. Epstein, Generative Social Science, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400842872

    2007 doi

  17. [22]

    Artificial intelligence and the future of work

    S. Benhamou, "Artificial intelligence and the future of work." Revue d'économie industrielle 169 (2020): 57-88

    2020

  18. [23]

    The Delphi method,

    H. A. Linstone and M. Turoff, "The Delphi method," Technological forecasting and social change, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 3-57, 1975

    1975

  19. [25]

    Tashakkori and C

    A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie, Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2003

    2003

  20. [27]

    The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications,

    C. Okoli and S. D. Pawlowski, "The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications," Information & Management, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 15-29, 2004

    2004

  21. [28]

    Agent -Based Modeling: Methods and Techniques for Simulating Human Systems,

    E. Bonabeau, "Agent -Based Modeling: Methods and Techniques for Simulating Human Systems," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 99, no. suppl 3, pp. 7280-7287, 2002

    2002

  22. [29]

    S. F. Railsback and V. Grimm, Agent -Based and Individual -Based Modeling: A Practical Introduction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012

    2012

  23. [30]

    Tutorial on agent -based modeling and simulation,

    C. M. Macal and M. J. North, "Tutorial on agent -based modeling and simulation," in Proceedings of the 37th Winter Simulation Conference, Orlando, FL, USA, December 4-7, 2005

    2005

  24. [31]

    K. Buse, N. Mays, and G. Walt, Making Health Policy. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education, 2012

    2012

  25. [32]

    D. L. Weimer and A. R. Vining, Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice. New York, NY: Routledge, 2017

    2017

  26. [33]

    D. N. Gujarati and D. C. Porter, Basic Econometrics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education, 2009

    2009

  27. [34]

    Kennedy, A Guide to Econometrics

    P. Kennedy, A Guide to Econometrics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2008

    2008

  28. [35]

    W. N. Dunn, Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. Boston, MA: Pearson Higher Ed, 2012

    2012

  29. [36]

    Structural decomposition techniques: Sense and sensitivity,

    E. Dietzenbacher and B. Los, "Structural decomposition techniques: Sense and sensitivity," Economic Systems Research, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 307-324, 1998

    1998

  30. [37]

    K. R. Polenske, (An empirical test of interregional input -output models: Estimation of 1963 Japanese production. The American Economic Review, 60(2), 76-82., 1970

    1963

  31. [38]

    G. J. Hewings and M. Sonis, What If? The Art and Science of Economic Modeling. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1988

    1988

  32. [39]

    Fischer, G

    F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, and M. S. Sidney, Eds., Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2007

    2007

  33. [40]

    The current state of scenario development: An overview of techniques,

    P. Bishop, A. Hines, and T. Collins, "The current state of scenario development: An overview of techniques," foresight, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 5- 25, 2007

    2007

  34. [41]

    The origins and evolution of scenario techniques in long range business planning,

    R. Bradfield et al., "The origins and evolution of scenario techniques in long range business planning," Futures, vol. 37, no. 8, pp. 795-812, 2005

    2005

  35. [42]

    Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search,

    D. Silver et al., "Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search," Nature, vol. 529, no. 7587, pp. 484-489, 2016

    2016

  36. [43]

    Foddy, Constructing Questions for Interviews and Questionnaires: Theory and Practice in Social Research

    W. Foddy, Constructing Questions for Interviews and Questionnaires: Theory and Practice in Social Research. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1993

    1993

  37. [44]

    Tourangeau, L

    R. Tourangeau, L. J. Rips, and K. Rasinski, The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2000

    2000

  38. [45]

    E. D. de Leeuw, J. J. Hox, and D. A. Dillman, International Handbook of Survey Methodology. New York, NY: Psychology Press, 2008

    2008

  39. [46]

    R. M. Groves et al., Survey Methodology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2009

    2009

  40. [47]

    Schwartz, The Art of the Long View: Planning for the Future in an Uncertain World

    P. Schwartz, The Art of the Long View: Planning for the Future in an Uncertain World. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday, 1991

    1991

  41. [48]

    Decision making and planning under low levels of predictability: Enhancing the scenario method,

    G. Wright and P. Goodwin, "Decision making and planning under low levels of predictability: Enhancing the scenario method," International Journal of Forecasting, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 813-825, 2009

    2009

  42. [50]

    LINES: muLtImodal traNsportation rEsilience analySis,

    J. T. Aparicio, E. Arsenio, F. C. Santos, and R. Henriques, “LINES: muLtImodal traNsportation rEsilience analySis,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 13, p. 7891, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.3390/su14137891

    2022 doi

  43. [52]

    Applications of Data Science and Artificial Intelligence,

    C. J. Costa and M. Aparicio, “Applications of Data Science and Artificial Intelligence,” Applied Sciences, vol. 13, no. 15, p. 9015, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.3390/app13159015

    2023 doi

  44. [53]

    The Impact of Technology and Change Management on Value Proposition Innovation

    R. Hajishirzi, C. J. Costa, and M. Aparicio, “The Impact of Technology and Change Management on Value Proposition Innovation” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. , vol. 71, pp. 4791 –4801, 2024, doi: 10.1109/TEM.2022.3225664

    2024

  45. [54]

    Artificial Intelligence as the core technology for the Digital Transformation process,

    R. Hajishirzi and C. J. Costa, “Artificial Intelligence as the core technology for the Digital Transformation process,” in 2021 16th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI) , Chaves, Portugal: IEEE, Jun. 2021, pp. 1 –6. doi: 10.23919/CISTI52073.2021.9476607

    2021

  46. [55]

    Walkability defined neighborhoods for sustainable cities,

    J. T. Aparicio, E. Arsenio, F. C. Santos, and R. Henriques, “Walkability defined neighborhoods for sustainable cities,” Cities, vol. 149, p. 104944, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2024.104944

    2024

  47. [56]

    Understanding the Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Public Transportation Travel Patterns in the City of Lisbon,

    J. T. Aparicio, E. Arsenio, and R. Henriques, “Understanding the Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Public Transportation Travel Patterns in the City of Lisbon,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 15, p. 8342, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13158342

    2021 doi

  48. [57]

    Gamification: A key determinant of massive open online course (MOOC) success,

    M. Aparicio, T. Oliveira, F. Bacao, and M. Painho, “Gamification: A key determinant of massive open online course (MOOC) success,” Information & Management , vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 39 –54, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.im.2018.06.003

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.