Design and Evaluation of an AI-Based Conversational Agent for Travel Agencies: Enhancing Training, Assistance, and Operational Efficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tourism industry faces increasing pressure for agile, personalized services, yet travel agencies struggle with fragmented knowledge scattered across isolated systems and legacy formats. While Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely applied in customer-facing roles, their potential to enhance internal operational efficiency remains largely underexplored. This study presents the design and evaluation of an intelligent assistant specifically for travel agency operations, built upon a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) architecture using Gemini 2.0 Flash. The system integrates heterogeneous data sources, including structured product catalogs and unstructured documentation processed via Optical Character Recognition (OCR), into a unified interface comprising work assistance, interactive training, and evaluation modules. Results demonstrate information retrieval times not greater than 45 seconds, ensuring its daily usability, while maintaining 95\% accuracy. Furthermore, the system democratizes tacit senior expertise and accelerates new employee onboarding. This research validates RAG architectures as a powerful solution to knowledge fragmentation, shifting the strategic AI focus from customer automation to employee empowerment and operational optimization.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".