MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Role of Artificial Intelligence in Customer Engagement and Experience

2025· book-chapter· en· W4409482814 on OpenAlexaff
Himanshi R. Giri, Thirupathi Manickam, Sriram Ananthan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsAcsenda School of Management
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCustomer engagementPsychologyBusinessComputer scienceKnowledge managementWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Businesses in the ultramodern period of today concentrate on drawing in customers and changing to meet their wants. The digital revolution has altered customer engagement strategies for businesses, which has an effect on their lifespan. Businesses look for creative methods to improve customer experience in order to remain competitive. During the Industrial Revolution 4.0., artificial intelligence (AI) significantly changed customer management, and it continues to do so today, and will surely continue in future as well. This chapter analyzes the conceptual framework of customer engagement, industries strategies and ethical considerations, data safety and security, mitigating the bias of AI, customer interactions and customer journey, and how artificial intelligence rebuilds, enhances, and optimizes customer management in various industries. Featuring an emphasis on both present and future uses, this chapter investigates how AI might improve corporate offerings, services, and consumer interaction. This chapter delves at how perception analytics, chatbots, and personalized experiences may use AI to improve consumer engagement. It analyzes ethical issues including data privacy, transparency, and prejudice in AI-driven customer management, with an emphasis on fairness and trust. It also examines AI's role in anticipating what customers want and enhancing interactions. This study examines the use of AI to customer management, including obstacles and methods to improve company expansion through the use of pertinent data. This chapter presents an empirical case study on AI's challenges, opportunities, and future potential in customer management and business engagement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207