MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408260145 · doi:10.23977/jaip.2025.080107

+iDigiChat: Intelligent Digital Marketing Service Chatbot for Efficient Customer Service via Artificial Intelligence

2025· article· en· W4408260145 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Artificial Intelligence Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in Service Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChatbotService (business)Customer serviceComputer scienceDigital marketingBusinessWorld Wide WebMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under the wave of digitalization, using intelligent technology to improve customer service efficiency has become a hot spot in industry research. Based on this background, this article clearly puts forward the research theme, that is, to explore how intelligent chat robots can help upgrade digital marketing services. This article focuses on the application of intelligent chat bot in the field of iDigiChat marketing services and its far-reaching impact. On the research method level, this article combines theoretical analysis with practical discussion, and discusses the design concept, technical architecture and intelligent interaction of intelligent chat robot. By simulating or based on the application examples of existing intelligent chat bots, the application potential of intelligent chat bots in different digital marketing scenarios is demonstrated. The research results show that the intelligent chat robot can improve the efficiency of customer service, shorten the waiting time of customers, provide personalized service experience and optimize the overall feeling of consumers. Its powerful data collection and analysis capabilities provide accurate data support for the formulation of digital marketing strategies, making marketing activities more targeted and effective.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.300 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Artificial Intelligence PracticeSame topicAI in Service InteractionsFrench-language works237,207