ScholarWorks@성균관대학교

초록

The authors regret that Tables 5 and 8 in the published online PDF contained formatting errors introduced during production. In particular, Table 5 (Cox regression of AI recruitment adoption) was severely misaligned, and Table 8 (Additional Cox regression of AI recruitment adoption 2) showed noticeable column misplacement. The corrected versions of Tables 5 and 8 are provided in this corrigendum, and the results and conclusions of the article remain unchanged. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. Table 5 Cox regression of AI recruitment adoption.Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 4Model 5BBBBBBB(SE)(SE)(SE)(SE)(SE)(SE)(SE)Age.009.012.007.009.008(.009)(.009)(.009)(.009)(.010)Conglomerate (dummy)−.611−.846†−.755−.870†−.861†(.477)(.485)(.488)(.497)(.513)Performance (ROA, t-1)1.6592.4342.7122.9152.260(2.378)(2.529)(2.674)(2.724)(2.794)Size (SalesLog, t-1)1.481∗∗1.257∗∗1.342∗∗1.178∗1.079∗(.474)(.472)(.480)(.389)(.477)Blind recruitment (dummy)1.015∗∗.798∗−18.890∗∗∗(.383)(.389)(.699)Competition ratio (dummy)-Low (∼20:1)Reference−.977−1.378∗ReferenceReference(.661)(.670)-Lower Middle (20:1∼60:1).977Reference−.401.807.390(.661)(.400)(.668)(.743)-Upper Middle (60:1∼100:1)1.378∗.401Reference1.096.749(.670)(.400)(.689)(.862)-High (100:1∼)1.443∗.466−.0651.144.348(.710)(.444)(.435)(.722)(.956)Blind recruitment ∗ Competition ratio (dummy)-Blind R. ∗ LowReference-Blind R. ∗ Lower Middle19.712∗∗∗(.939)-Blind R. ∗ Upper Middle19.622(.)-Blind R. ∗ High20.220∗∗∗(1.111)Log likelihood−122.336−118.724−119.203−117.001−115.605LR chi2(df)15.95(4)∗∗23.18(5)∗∗∗22.22(7)∗∗26.62(8)∗∗∗29.42(10)∗∗ΔLR chi2(df)7.22(1)∗∗6.27(3)†3.45(3)2.79(2) Low (∼20:1) Lower Middle (20:1∼60:1) Upper Middle (60:1∼100:1) High (100:1∼) Blind R. ∗ Low Blind R. ∗ Lower Middle Blind R. ∗ Upper Middle Blind R. ∗ High Table 8 Additional Cox regression of AI recruitment adoption 2.Model 7BBBBBB(SE)(SE)(SE)(SE)(SE)(SE)Age.005(.009)Conglomerate (dummy)−.810(.505)Performance (ROA, t-1)2.158(2.790)Size (SalesLog, t-1)1.005∗(.475)Blind recruitment ∗ Competition ratio (dummy)-NO Blind R. ∗ Low (∼20:1)Reference−.301−.742−.362−1.294†−1.509∗(.748)(.861)(.955)(.735)(.694)-NO Blind R. ∗ Lower Middle (20:1∼60:1).301Reference−.440.061−.993−1.207∗(.748)(.771)(.859)(.615)(.579)-NO Blind R. ∗ Upper Middle (60:1∼100:1).742.440Reference.380−.533−.767(.861)(.771)(.945)(.710)(.698)-No Blind R. ∗ High (100:1∼).362.061−.380Reference−.932−1.147(.955)(.859)(.945)(.839)(.804)-Blind R. ∗ Lower Middle (20:1∼60:1)1.294†.993.553.932Reference−.214(.735)(.615)(.710)(.839)(.502)-Blind R. ∗ Upper Middle (60:1∼100:1)1.509∗1.207∗.7671.147.214Reference(.694)(.579)(.698)(.804)(.502)-Blind R. ∗ High (100:1∼)1.686∗1.384∗.9941.324.392.177(.744)(.636)(.682)(.826)(.541)(.528)Log likelihood−113.880LR chi2(df)23.21(10)∗∗ NO Blind R. ∗ Low (∼20:1) NO Blind R. ∗ Lower Middle (20:1∼60:1) NO Blind R. ∗ Upper Middle (60:1∼100:1) No Blind R. ∗ High (100:1∼) Blind R. ∗ Lower Middle (20:1∼60:1) Blind R. ∗ Upper Middle (60:1∼100:1) Blind R. ∗ High (100:1∼)