Factors influencing acceptance and trust of chatbots in juvenile offenders’ risk assessment training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Research has identified simulation-based training with chatbots and virtual avatars as an effective educational strategy in some domains, such as medicine and mental health disciplines. Several studies on interactive systems have also suggested that user experience is decisive for adoption. As interest increases, it becomes important to examine the factors influencing user acceptance and trust in simulation-based training systems, and to validate applicability to specific learning tasks. The aim of this research is twofold: (1) to examine the perceived acceptance and trust in a risk assessment training chatbot developed to help students assess risk and needs of juvenile offenders, and (2) to examine the factors influencing students' perceptions of acceptance and trust. Methods: Participants were 112 criminology students in an undergraduate course in a Canadian university. Participants were directed to use a custom-designed chatbot with a virtual 3D avatar for juvenile offenders' risk assessment training, to complete online questionnaires and a risk assessment exercise. Results: Results show satisfactory levels of acceptance and trust in the chatbot. Concerning acceptance, more than half appeared to be satisfied or very satisfied with the chatbot, while most participants appeared to be neutral or satisfied with the benevolence and credibility of the chatbot. Discussion: Results suggest that acceptance and trust do not only depend on the design of the chatbot software, but also on the characteristics of the user, and most prominently on self-efficacy, state anxiety, learning styles and neuroticism personality traits. As trust and acceptance play a vital role in determining technology success, these results are encouraging.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".