MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Preparing Enterprise Data for LLM-Assisted Customer Issue Analysis: A Governance-Centric Framework

2022· article· W7162292117 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Artificial Intelligence Data Science and Machine Learning · 2022
Typearticle
Language
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicData Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData governanceEnterprise data managementScalabilityAuditMetadataCorporate governanceEnterprise information systemEnterprise architectureCustomer intelligenceEnterprise information security architecture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) in enterprise environments has transformed customer support operations by enabling intelligent issue classification, automated response generation, and context-aware analytics. The effectiveness performance of LLM-powered customer issue analysis relies on the quality, governance, security, and compliance of enterprise data preparation pipelines, though. Organizations are still grappling with a host of issues, including poor record management, differing metadata, concerns about privacy, and compliance with regulations, that hinder the trustworthiness and scalability of AI-powered customer service. To address these gaps, this study introduces a framework centered on governance principles for preparing data for use by LLMs to analyses customer issues, incorporating all of the following aspects into a single analytical architecture data ingestion, cleansing, metadata management, compliance enforcement, data lineage tracking and privacy-aware data preprocessing. This framework also adopts governance-centric components, like access control, audit logging, anonymization, semantic enrichment and policy validation, to enable secure and explainable AI operations. The analytical performance has been shown to be improved by experimental evaluation over 10,000 enterprise customer support tickets, resulting in 92.3% classification accuracy and 0.91 F1-score in comparison to conventional ungoverned LLM approaches. The framework also lowered the chances of hallucination, boosted readiness for compliance and kept the inference latency low enough to meet the needs of real-time enterprise applications. The findings show that data preparation with governance awareness significantly contributes to the reliability, transparency, and scalability of LLM-powered customer service solutions. The suggested framework offers a pragmatic approach for the trustworthy enterprise AI adoption and secure, compliant, and efficient analysis of customer issues for modern digital organizations.

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.

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)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0230.020
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.187
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.264 · 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