MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

AI Driven Trolley System with SMS Alerts for Seamless Customer Interaction

2025· article· W7131207645 on OpenAlexaff
Nehru P, R. Devi, Priyadharshini. SP, M. Sheela Newsheeba, M. Senthilkumar, R Anitha

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and dialogue systems
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShort Message ServiceMobile phonePhoneService (business)Feature (linguistics)Customer servicePush technologySMS bankingService provider

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Providing outstanding customer experiences is crucial in today's cutthroat service sectors. Like a ‘digital shopping trolley’ feature on a retail app or website, a ‘trolley system’ in an SMS message usually refers to a notification sent to a customer regarding their shopping trolley, most likely detailing the items currently in their trolley, their total price or a reminder to finish their purchase if they left the store without checking out. Currently, a mobile phone is seen as a tool that allows users to be contacted at any time and from any location via SMS, phone calls, or messaging apps like WhatsApp, Messenger, and others. Sometimes, this accessibility can annoy people, particularly when they receive inappropriate and unnecessary messages at the incorrect moment (e.g., meeting, lecture, workshop, etc.). Numerous firms and mobile providers send us useless SMS bundles promoting various bargains almost every day. It diverts us when we are occupied with crucial work. These advertising messages might occasionally cause us to overlook crucial messages. A prediction model for categorising SMS alerts according to user preferences is presented in this work. The BRDT methods yield the highest accuracy (91%), according to a comparison of various machine learning algorithms.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech and dialogue systemsFrench-language works237,207