- What does it mean to coordinate through an algorithm, and how is that distinct from being managed by one?
- When does the algorithmic third become a partner versus an obstacle to coordination?
- Which workplace handovers and exchanges are uniquely triadic, and which can still be done dyadically?
- What is the historical relationship between oracy, literacy, and algorithmacy as coordination forms?
How to submit.
Every submission to the Algorithmacy Conference becomes a public pull request, and its timestamp is your authorship-priority record. There are four ways in — a web form (no GitHub needed), an AI agent via our MCP connector, a copy-paste prompt for any LLM, or a manual pull request. Pick whichever fits; they all end in the same place.
Tracks & Questions
5 thematic tracks · click to expand
- How do performance algorithms reshape what counts as “good work” across sectors?
- What new forms of surveillance and metric-shaping emerge when management is algorithmically mediated?
- How are scheduling, ranking, and matching algorithms reconfiguring shift work and labor markets?
- What is the role of human management in algorithmically-managed environments?
- How do platform workers learn the algorithm in the absence of documentation or training?
- What strategies do gig workers develop to game, anticipate, or accommodate platform logics?
- What forms of collective action are possible when work is algorithmically mediated?
- How do workers refuse, sabotage, or work around algorithmic management?
- What is the role of unions, worker centers, and informal solidarities in this setting?
- What information asymmetries exist between workers, managers, and the algorithm?
- When does algorithmic opacity protect workers, and when does it harm them?
- Why do workers comply with algorithmic directives, and under what conditions do they cease to?
- How can algorithmic systems be audited specifically from the worker’s perspective?
- What models of codetermination or stakeholder review apply to algorithmic management?
- What methodologies are best suited to studying algorithmic coordination at work?
- How do we observe what cannot be directly seen — model behavior, intent, reasoning?
- Which earlier regimes — bureaucracy, Taylorism, scientific management — prefigure today’s algorithmacy?
- What field accounts reveal the texture of algorithmically-mediated work as it is actually done?
- What can be learned from those who have left algorithmic platforms about what failed for them?
Special session — Digital Sovereignty
Chaired by Samuel Fosso Wamba · Information Systems & Data Science, TBS Education
The spread of AI, data-driven decision-making, and platform business models is reshaping the digital economy — and putting digital sovereignty at the center of how organizations coordinate. Sovereignty here is the capacity of states, organizations, and societies to retain control over their data, infrastructures, technologies, and ecosystems even as they depend on cloud, AI, and global platforms. This session asks how that struggle between openness and control plays out where work is mediated by an algorithmic third party — and treats sovereignty as an organizational and coordination problem, not only a regulatory one.
We welcome theoretical, empirical, and practitioner contributions. Submit through the form below and flag "Digital Sovereignty" in the optional special-session field; pick whichever track fits best. Like everything at the conference, accepted work is reviewed in the open. Themes include:
- Foundations — defining and operationalizing digital sovereignty; its tensions with digital globalization; theoretical lenses (dynamic capabilities, institutional and platform theory).
- Technologies & infrastructures — AI sovereignty and algorithmic control; data governance and cross-border flows; cloud dependency and multi-cloud strategy; open-source vs. proprietary ecosystems.
- Organizations, platforms & supply chains — platform power, lock-in, and dependency; sovereign capabilities of SMEs; algorithmic management and supply-chain resilience; strategic responses to platform dominance.
- Global & regional perspectives — European, North American, Chinese, African, and Global South approaches to digital control and governance; comparative cross-country analyses.
- Futures & societal implications — governance models for sovereign digital ecosystems; ethics of AI and data sovereignty; digital inclusion, inequality, and sustainability.
Contributions from diverse geographical and intellectual backgrounds are strongly encouraged.
Special session — Algorithmacy Research
Chaired by Roger Hunt · Bentley University · conference convener
Algorithmacy isn't only a conference theme — it's an open, living research program, and this session is the front door to it. Everything runs in public: the algorithmacy research repository holds the code, probes, logged experiments, and papers, and every submission to the conference is itself a public pull request against that repository. This session invites work that uses, extends, or challenges that open apparatus — and shows newcomers exactly how to contribute to it.
We especially welcome contributions that put the open process to work: replications and re-analyses of logged experiments, new probes or instruments, method papers, negative and null results, and field accounts of algorithmically-mediated coordination. Submit through the form below and flag "Algorithmacy Research" in the optional special-session field; pick whichever track fits best.
The repository
Open code, probes, and papers — including the instrument-validation arc and the organizational-frontier lab. View the repository →
How to submit
Any of the four paths below ends as a public pull request whose timestamp is your priority record. No GitHub account required for the web form.
What happens next
Open, signed review on the PR thread. Accepted papers are merged and published on the Accepted Papers board, with their full review history.
Special session — Algorithmic Literacy
Chaired by Dr. Uohna Thiessen · AI/ML Strategist & Educator — Break Through Tech AI, Cornell Tech
Algorithmacy assumes a worker can actually read the algorithmic third party they coordinate through — but most people can't. This session treats algorithmic literacy, the everyday fluency in data and AI, as the missing coordination competency. When a chatbot mediates a customer conversation, a model routes a task, or a recommendation shapes a decision, the humans on both sides need enough fluency to trust, question, and steer the mediator between them. Drawing on work in democratizing AI, radically accessible data-science education, and responsible AI, it asks how literacy becomes the infrastructure that makes algorithmically mediated coordination work — and who gets left out when it is missing.
We welcome theoretical, empirical, pedagogical, and practitioner contributions. Submit through the form below and flag "Algorithmic Literacy" in the optional special-session field; pick whichever track fits best. Like everything at the conference, accepted work is reviewed in the open. Themes include:
- Literacy as competency — the minimum viable AI and data fluency a non-specialist needs to coordinate through an algorithm; what "good enough" looks like, and how it differs from expert data science.
- Conversational mediation — chatbots and conversational AI as the third party in customer engagement, marketing, and hyper-personalization; trust, handoff, and accountability between human and bot.
- Democratization & access — "data belongs to those who generate it"; closing literacy gaps and breaking barriers for underrepresented communities in algorithmically mediated work.
- Responsible & legible AI — making models contestable and steerable by the people they coordinate rather than opaque to them; literacy as a precondition for governance and worker voice.
- Pedagogy & practice — radically accessible ways to teach data science and machine learning, from team-based industry-project programs to teaching statistics through dance; building coordination-ready practitioners.
Practitioner reports, classroom and field studies, and cross-disciplinary contributions are strongly encouraged.
Submit directly — no GitHub needed.
Fill in the form below and confirm your email. We'll open the pull request for you and send you the link. Your submission and all reviews are public from intake, and the PR timestamp is your priority record. One submission per email — to revise later, resubmit with the same email and confirm again; it updates your existing PR.
Have an AI agent submit it.
If you use Claude or any MCP-capable assistant, connect our submission server once, then just say "submit my abstract to the Algorithmacy Conference." The agent gathers your details, formats everything, and submits — but it can't publish on its own. We email you a one-click sign-off link, and the pull request opens only when you click it. The agent never receives the token, so nothing goes public without your approval.
1 · Add the connector
In Claude, open Settings → Connectors → Add custom connector and paste this URL (no login or key needed):
https://algorithmacy.org/api/mcp
2 · Ask it to submit
Enable the connector in a chat and say "submit this abstract to the Algorithmacy Conference," pasting your draft. It calls list_tracks and submit_abstract for you.
3 · Sign off by email
You'll get a confirmation email — click "Confirm & publish" and your PR opens. Its timestamp is your priority record.
Works with any MCP client (Claude desktop & web, Cursor, custom agents). Tools: list_tracks, submit_abstract. Building your own agent? See llms.txt.
Or paste a prompt into any LLM.
No connector required: paste the prompt below into a fresh conversation with Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, or any LLM with web/tool access. It will ask you for your title, abstract, type, track, and the rest — then either open the PR for you (if it has GitHub tool access) or hand you the exact commands and content to do it yourself.
What it does
Collects your submission details, drafts the markdown file, and (with tool access) opens the PR. Without tools, it generates the commands and content for you to run yourself.
What it needs
Any capable LLM. Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, etc. For full automation, an LLM that can run shell commands (Claude Code, ChatGPT with GitHub plugin) or browse on your behalf.
What you keep
Full control. The LLM walks you through and asks for confirmation before opening the PR. You can stop at any point and finish manually.
Or do it by hand on GitHub.
-
Fork the repository
Open the repo and click "Fork" at the top-right. Direct fork link →
-
Copy the submission template
In your fork, copy
submissions/TEMPLATE.mdtosubmissions/<your-handle>.md. -
Fill in your abstract
Complete every field: title, authors, type, track, 300–500-word abstract, outline, author bios.
-
Open a pull request against
mainGitHub will auto-populate the conference's PR template. Title format:
[Type] [TR.0X] Your title.
Full workflow: CONTRIBUTING.md · Tracks: TRACKS.md · Template: TEMPLATE.md
What you're agreeing to.
- OpenYour submission and all reviews are public on the repository from intake. There is no anonymized stage.
- SignedReviewers attach their names. Accountability is a feature of the review, not a compromise of it.
- PublishedAccepted papers ship alongside their full reviewer reports, author responses, and revision trail.
- TimestampedYour PR timestamp is your priority record. The conference will support your claim in any future dispute.
No double-blind workflow. Why this model →