MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205795457 · doi:10.4018/jgim.20211101.oa53

Conversational Agents in Organisations

2021· article· en· W3205795457 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Global Information Management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in Service Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityVictoria UniversityVictoria University of Wellington
KeywordsKnowledge managementTypologyComputer scienceValue (mathematics)Process managementBusinessSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conversational agents (CAs) promise to create significant organisational value, by transforming how organisations operate and serve customers. Yet, the malleability of this technology poses challenges to both researchers and practitioners because of the wide range of strategic applications they can enable. Drawing on the lens of routine capability, this study investigates strategic applications of CAs, and their associated implementation enablers and challenges. Via an exploratory case study of eight organisations that have successfully implemented CAs, this paper contributes to the literature on the value and implementation of conversational agents in particular and cognitive technologies in general by developing a typology of CA strategic applications and their implementation considerations. For practitioners, the findings highlight the interplay between technology, user, and project management factors that need to be addressed to ensure the successful delivery of the value of CAs.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

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 communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.268 · 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