The Algorithmic Barrier: A Framework for Artificial Frictional Unemployment and Information Asymmetry in Automated Recruitment Systems
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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)
- arXiv
- 2601.14534
- OpenAlex
- W7125446292
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- 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