MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

SLA as a mechanism to manage risks related to chatbot services

2020· article· en· W3037495750 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in Service Interactions
Canadian institutionsConcordia University of Edmonton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChatbotChecklistMainstreamComputer scienceService (business)World Wide WebService providerInternet privacyComputer securityRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intelligent Chatbot services become one of the mainstream applications in user help and many other areas. Apart from bringing numerous benefits to users these services may bring additional risks to the companies that employ them. The study starts with the review of the scale of chatbot industry and common use cases by focusing on their applications & industry tendencies. Review of functionality and architecture of typical chatbot services shows the potential risks associated with chatbots. Analysis of such risks in the paper helped to build a checklist that security managers can use to assess risks prior to chatbot implementation. The proposed checklist was tested by reviewing a number of Service Level Agreements (SLA) of real chatbot providers.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.018

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAI in Service InteractionsFrench-language works237,207