standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 1 relation here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| claim_type | existence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | adaptive conversational agent design Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | behavioural-experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: behavioural-experiment | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[0] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[2] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The pilot's sample was small and the authors treat the whole design as provisional pending a larger main study. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: everything reported: DESPITE ITS LIMITED SAMPLE SIZE, OUR PILOT STUDY OFFERS VALUABLE INSIGHTS - a pilot, treated as provisional pending the main study | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The within-subjects design may bias later user-experience responses; a between-subjects design is being considered instead. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the user-experience responses specifically: IT IS WORTH CONSIDERING A BETWEEN-SUBJECTS DESIGN ... AS THIS PREVENTS PARTICIPANTS FROM BEING BIASED IN THEIR RESPONSES | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The cognitive-style group was imbalanced (10 rational vs 4 intuitive), which may explain the absence of significant effects there. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the null for cognitive style: A POSSIBLE EXPLANATION COULD BE THE IMBALANCE OF THE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS THAT WERE CLASSIFIED AS RATIONAL OR INTUITIVE (10 COMPARED TO 4) | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Only two user characteristics were studied, and separately; other characteristics and their combinations remain unexamined. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the generality of the personalisation claim: only two user characteristics were studied, separately, so combinations remain untested | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The summarised benefit does not carry the exceptions the results report: in one group the adapted agent was no better on satisfaction, and the UN-adapted agent was rated higher on enjoyment. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the conclusion that individualised CA design improves user experience: the results report two exceptions in the rational/intuitive cognitive style group, one of them favouring the un-adapted agent on enjoyment | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The design used may bias the responses it collects, and the authors say a different design would prevent it. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: these pilot ratings as unbiased measures of user experience: the authors state a within-subjects design was used and that a between-subjects design would prevent bias from previous questions | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Two user characteristics were examined, separately, and the authors state the interplay between them was not investigated. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: generalising to adaptation on user characteristics in general: two were examined separately, and their combinations and other CA design characteristics were not | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The constructs are measured entirely by item sets borrowed from other studies, so the measurement inherits whatever those instruments assume. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: these variables as directly observed: every construct is measured with item sets adopted from prior literature rather than developed or validated here | limitations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the theory of how humans accommodate their speech to an interlocutor, re-applied to design a chatbot that accommodates its style to the user Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | the tagger's words | |
| controls | attention check questions embedded in the instrument, with the seven data sets that failed them excluded before analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: inattentive responding - participants clicking through a questionnaire about conversational agents without reading it · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | conversational agents Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: conversational agents | concepts[0] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | user experience Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: user experience | concepts[1] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | service satisfaction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: service satisfaction | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| senses | user experience - operationalised as three separate measured constructs: service satisfaction as the evaluative attribute, enjoyment as the hedonic one, re-use intention as the pragmatic one Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | satisfaction - a construct the paper notes is used for two different things across disciplines: user attitudes ABOUT A SYSTEM, or the perception of SERVICE INTERACTIONS Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → communication accommodation theory (Giles et al., 2010) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | extends → Altmeyer et al. (2020); Danckwerts et al. (2019); Gnewuch et al. (2020) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | user experience —operationalised-as→ service satisfaction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: user experience · service satisfaction | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: t-test | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Wilcoxon signed-rank test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Wilcoxon signed-rank test | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | p-value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: p-value | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | median split Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: median split | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | power analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: power analysis | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | effect size (Cohen's d) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: effect size (Cohen's d) | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | standard deviation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard deviation | content_tags.statistics[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | In the need-for-interaction group, both enjoyment and re-use intention were significantly higher for the chatbot adapted to the user than for the non-adapted chatbot. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | In the rational/intuitive cognitive-style group, none of the user-experience differences between the adapted and non-adapted chatbot reached statistical significance. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The improvement in service satisfaction from individualization was not statistically significant. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Individualization improved ratings in both groups except that, for cognitive-style adaptation, service satisfaction was unchanged and enjoyment was actually rated higher for the non-adapted chatbot. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Enjoyment of the chatbot adapted to the user's need for interaction averaged 5.70 against 4.90 for the one-size-fits-all chatbot. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | conversational agents (CAs) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: conversational agents (CAs) | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | cognitive style Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cognitive style | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | intuitive cognitive style Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: intuitive cognitive style | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | rational cognitive style Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: rational cognitive style | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | need for interaction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: need for interaction | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | user characteristics Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: user characteristics | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | enjoyment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: enjoyment | content_tags.definitions[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | user characteristic Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: user characteristic | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | user experience Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: user experience | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | experimental task Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: experimental task | content_tags.variables[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 37 — participants recruited for the pilot study Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 30 — usable data sets analysed after excluding inattentive participants Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | seven — data sets dropped for failing attention checks Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 52 — participants in the pre-study used to set the classification thresholds Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 4.7 — threshold score on the 7-point scale above which a participant counts as having a high need for interaction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | mean = 5.70 compared to mean = 4.90 — enjoyment rating of the CA adapted to need for interaction versus the one-size-fits-all CA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 90 — minimum sample size the power analysis requires for the planned main study Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | n = 8 — participants in the two qualitative pre-tests validating the chatbots Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 10 compared to 4 — imbalance between participants classified as rational and as intuitive, offered as the reason for the null result in that group Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[8] | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.