MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4360976874 · doi:10.5539/ies.v16n2p103

The System Architecture of Intelligent Student Relationship Management Based on Cognitive Technology with Conversational Agent for Enhancing Student’s Loyalty in Higher Education

2023· article· en· W4360976874 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nutthapat Kaewrattanapat, Panita Wannapiroon, Prachyanun Nilsook

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in Service Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoyaltyInterquartile rangeComputer scienceImplementationKnowledge managementPsychologyMarketingStatisticsMathematicsSoftware engineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the conceptual framework, value chain model and the system architecture of intelligent student relationship management based on cognitive technology with conversational agent for enhancing student’s loyalty in higher education. The purposes were to synthesize the conceptual framework and apply it to develop the value chain model and the system architecture of intelligent student relationship management based on cognitive technology with conversational agent for enhancing student’s loyalty in higher education and assess the developed value chain model and system architecture. The questionnaire was employed as the instrument to assess and certify the value chain model and the system architecture by the experts. The 5 point-Likert scale was used to identify the level of agreement of the value chain model and system architecture certification assessment. The instrument was verified by five experts using content validity index (CVI). After that, the value chain model and the system architecture were verified based on the consensus assessments of seventeen experts using mean, standard deviation (S.D.), median, interquartile range and quartile deviation. The results revealed that the experts had a consensus on the value chain model developed based on the conceptual framework (Mean = 4.89, S.D. = 0.27, Median = 5, Interquartile Range: I.R. = 0.00, Quartile Deviation: Q.D. = 0.00). They also had a consensus to approve the system architecture developed based on the value chain model (Mean = 4.70, S.D. = 0.55, Median = 5, Interquartile Range: I.R. = 1.00, Quartile Deviation: Q.D. = 0.50).

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 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicAI in Service InteractionsFrench-language works237,207