Artificial intelligence-based chatbots adoption among higher education institutions by integrating with UTAUT2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite certain advancements, the incorporation of artificial intelligence in universities is still inadequate. The requirement for students will continue for a while, although the development of artificial intelligence-based chatbots in schools has limited the role of students. The research aimed to assess the willingness of Jordanian learners in higher education to use artificial intelligence-powered chatbots for instructional purposes. The present research suggests nine hypotheses derived from the UTAUT2 model to assess students' desire to use artificial intelligence-based chatbots in learning. The pupils' information was gathered and examined using PLS-SEM. The research results showed that nine hypotheses were confirmed. The outcomes indicate that learners are interested in adopting artificial intelligence-based chatbots into their studies. The research's findings will supply administrators at higher education with valuable insights into the effectiveness of artificial intelligence-based chatbots in learning. Moreover, the findings will help developers of artificial intelligence-based chatbots, higher learning administrators, and legislators execute artificial intelligence-based chatbots that fulfil modern educational requirements.
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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".