MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403091139 · doi:10.36676/urr.v8.i4.1401

Conversational AI: Transforming Human-Machine Interaction through Deep Learning

2021· article· en· W4403091139 on OpenAlexaff
Alice Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversal Research Reports · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and dialogue systems
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceDeep learningCognitive scienceHuman–computer interactionPsychologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conversational AI has revolutionized the way humans interact with machines, with applications spanning customer service, virtual assistants, and healthcare. This paper explores the advancements in conversational AI systems, focusing on the role of deep learning models such as Transformers, BERT, and GPT-3 in improving language understanding and response generation. The study outlines how these models enable AI systems to generate contextually relevant, coherent, and human-like responses in various conversation settings. Additionally, the paper delves into the architecture of neural networks used in Conversational AI, highlighting the progression from traditional rule-based systems to more sophisticated deep learning frameworks. The paper further discusses the challenges faced in conversational AI, such as natural language ambiguity, context retention, and ethical considerations surrounding bias in language models. Moreover, the integration of conversational AI into business processes, healthcare, and customer support is analyzed, showcasing real-world case studies where AI-driven chatbots have improved operational efficiency. The paper also explores the future of conversational AI, including multimodal systems that combine text, voice, and visual inputs for more dynamic interactions. Lastly, it considers the ethical implications of conversational AI, particularly in terms of privacy concerns and data security, offering recommendations for creating more transparent and accountable AI systems.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversal Research ReportsSame topicSpeech and dialogue systemsFrench-language works237,207