MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Designing and Generating Conversational Agents in the Safe Transportation Sector Using DSL

2025· article· W7133511723 on OpenAlexaff
Charaf Ouaddi, Lamya Benaddi, Addeslam Jakimi, Rachid Saadane, Abdellah Chehri

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and dialogue systems
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital subscriber lineKey (lock)Domain (mathematical analysis)Component (thermodynamics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The transportation sector is increasingly integrating intelligent conversational agents to enhance user experience, streamline operations, and promote safer travel. These agents serve critical functions such as providing round-the-clock information, responding to frequently asked questions, and improving customer service interactions. They are typically categorized into rule-based agents-built upon predefined rules and intents-and AI-based agents, which employ advanced techniques like deep learning and natural language processing (NLP). To simplify development, many organizations utilize graphical interfaces powered by APIs from intent recognition platforms such as IBM Watson and Dialogflow. However, these APIs present notable limitations, including vendor lock-in and high operational costs. Moreover, the absence of a dedicated development platform tailored to the transportation domain poses additional challenges. To address these gaps, this paper proposes a Domain-Specific Language (DSL) designed for the modeling and generation of conversational agents in the transportation sector. The proposed graphical DSL leverages Model-Driven Engineering (MDE) to accelerate agent creation and automatically generate necessary components-such as data files, configuration files, and source code-for training and deployment, thereby reducing development time and cost.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.222 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech and dialogue systemsFrench-language works237,207