MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415947234 · doi:10.1080/15472450.2025.2576883

TransitTalk: Large language model-based digital assistants for enhancing transit customer experience and staff performance

2025· article· en· W4415947234 on OpenAlexaff
Jiahao Wang, Amer Shalaby

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intelligent Transportation Systems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in Service Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCustomer experienceTransit (satellite)Public transportUser experience designRail transitCustomer relationship management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large-language models (LLMs) have transformed natural-language understanding, generation, and reasoning, yet their potential within public-transit operations remains largely untapped. This study introduces TransitTalk, a retrieval-augmented framework that positions an LLM as an intelligent intermediary between natural-language requests and the heterogeneous databases that underpin modern transit networks. The framework first interprets rider or staff intent, then issues structured queries to relevant data sources, and finally produces context-aware conversational responses. Chain-of-thought prompting and vector-database retrieval enable the LLM to operate simultaneously as a dialogue agent, domain expert, and bespoke formatter, thereby bridging the gap between technical data schemas and user-friendly information delivery. The paper demonstrates the practicality of the framework through three fully implemented prototypes. Tweet Writer automatically drafts clear, multi-platform service-alert messages; Trip Advisor generates personalized, constraint-aware itineraries; and Policy Navigator delivers concise explanations of fares, accessibility provisions, and service regulations. Collectively, these applications illustrate how an LLM layer can streamline communications, reduce staff workload, and enhance the passenger information experience without disrupting existing data pipelines. All source code are openly available.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intelligent Transportation SystemsSame topicAI in Service InteractionsFrench-language works237,207