MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955825940 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp.13261

Personalizing Chatbot Conversations with IBM Watson

2019· article· en· W2955825940 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kennedy Ralston

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in Service Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWatsonChatbotComputer scienceIBMPersonalizationHuman–computer interactionWorld Wide WebUser interfaceInteractivityMultimediaArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Systems powered by artificial intelligence are being developed to communicate with users in a progressively “human-like” conversational way, in order to make them more user-friendly. Such systems are utilized across many industries including teaching, marketing, and health care, and are commonly made available to the public as interactive chatbots. It is important to explore new possibilities in development to make these systems more personalized to their users by improving and expanding their functionality and interactivity. This project delves further into this topic by creating a system that generates increasingly customized responses to user input. One crucial way to improve the functionality of an artificial intelligence system is by molding a personal profile of the user, which can be referenced by the system in order to respond to the user’s needs in an adaptive way based on their preferences. The project is focused on investigating packages that can be used to more effectively respond to the user’s mood, personality, and language, including IBM Watson Tone Analyzer, Watson Personality Insights, and Watson Language Translator. These packages are then utilized to work towards creating an intelligent, interactive system that can effectively fulfill the individual needs of its users.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicAI in Service InteractionsFrench-language works237,207