PreprintCited by 0AI and HR TechnologiesEthics and Social Impacts of AILabor market dynamics and wage inequality

The Algorithmic Barrier: A Framework for Artificial Frictional Unemployment and Information Asymmetry in Automated Recruitment Systems

Open access
Fofanah, Ibrahim Denis·2026·arXiv

Abstract

The United States labor market has entered a period in which high job vacancy rates and prolonged unemployment persist together. Classical theory attributes such conditions to skills mismatch or geographic immobility, but neither fully explains a pattern now widely reported: qualified candidates are rejected at the earliest, automated stage of hiring, before any human sees their application. This paper introduces Artificial Frictional Unemployment (AFU), a framework describing how deterministic automated screening rejects qualified candidates through semantic misinterpretation rather than genuine skill gaps. We situate the phenomenon within labor economics and information asymmetry theory and formalize the mechanism by which legacy Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) turn hiring into a high-precision classification problem that inflates false negatives. The contribution is primarily conceptual. To make the mechanism concrete, we report a controlled proof-of-concept simulation comparing keyword-based screening with vector-space semantic matching under identical conditions. The simulation shows how lexical variance alone can produce false negatives; it is not a measurement of how much real-world friction is artificial, which we leave to future field studies. Building on the framework, we outline JobOS, a candidate-side architecture that illustrates how semantic competency mapping could operate alongside existing hiring infrastructure. Framing automated recruitment as labor market infrastructure, rather than a firm-level convenience, exposes a correctable source of matching inefficiency with consequences for workforce participation and the use of human capital.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2601.14534

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Authors
Fofanah, I. D.
Affiliations
Pace University (US)
Corresponding author
Fofanah, Ibrahim Denis
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7125446292
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › AI and HR Technologies
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
Keywords
recruitment automation, applicant tracking systems, information asymmetry, semantic matching, false-negative results, job matching, labor market infrastructure, labor force participation, human capital

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review