Customer Attitudes Towards the Use of Intelligent Conversational Agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intelligent conversational agents (ICAs) are artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled systems that can communicate with humans through text or voice using natural language. The first ICA, “Eliza,” appeared in 1966 to simulate human conversation using pattern matching. Commercial ICAs appeared on the AOL and MSN platforms in 2001 and aided in developing advanced AI and Human-Computer Interaction (HCI). Since then, ICAs have progressively appeared in consumer products and services. Their success depends on the user’s experience and attitude towards these services. This research examines customer attitudes towards ICAs through a theoretical framework of integrated Expectation Confirmation Theory (ECT) and Task Technology Fit Theory (TTF). By exploring user experience via an experiment that engages end-users with ICA’s different functions and tasks, this study examines user perception of ICA’s AI capabilities, such as Conversation Ability, Friendliness, Intelligence, Responsiveness, Task Performance, and Trust. This research investigates how customer satisfaction with ICA capabilities and perceived task technology fit influence their intention to use ICAs. A field survey of 380 Canadian end-users utilizing ICAs on the websites of five large Canadian telecom service providers enabled empirical testing of the model.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.201 | 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 teacher head, 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".