Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 83

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The impact of chatbots on public service provision: A qualitative interview study with citizens and public service providers

Larsen, Anna Grøndahl, Følstad, Asbjørn·2024·Government Information Quarterly
DOI 10.1016/j.giq.2024.101927
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.giq.2024.101927

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Amiri, 2022, Chatbot use cases in the Covid-19 public health response, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 29, 1000, 10.1093/jamia/ocac014 · DOI
  2. Aoki, 2020, An experimental study of public trust in AI chatbots in the public sector, Government Information Quarterly, 37, 10.1016/j.giq.2020.101490 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Bannister, 2014, ICT, public values and transformative government: A framework and programme for research, Government Information Quarterly, 31, 119, 10.1016/j.giq.2013.06.002 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Brown, 2021, Understanding public value – Why does it matter?, International Journal of Public Administration, 44, 803, 10.1080/01900692.2021.1929558 · DOI
  5. Cordella, 2012, A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical reflection, Government Information Quarterly, 29, 512, 10.1016/j.giq.2012.03.004 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Cordella, 2018, ICTs and value creation in public sector: Manufacturing logic vs service logic, Information Polity, 23, 125, 10.3233/IP-170061 · DOI
  7. De Graaf, 2016, Coping with public value conflicts, Administration and Society, 48, 1101, 10.1177/0095399714532273 · DOI
  8. Følstad, 2023, User interactions with a municipality chatbot—Lessons learnt from dialogue analysis, International Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 10.1080/10447318.2023.2238355 · DOI
  9. Fukumoto, 2021, Public values theory: What is missing?, The American Review of Public Administration, 49, 635, 10.1177/0275074018814244 · DOI
  10. Goh, 2020, IT value creation in public sector: How IT-enabled capabilities mitigate tradeoffs in public organisations, European Journal of Information Systems, 29, 25, 10.1080/0960085X.2019.1708821 · DOI
  11. Haugeland, 2022, Understanding the user experience of customer service chatbots: An experimental study of chatbot interaction design, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 161, 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102788 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Hilhorst, 2022, Efficiency gains in public service delivery through information technology in municipalities, Government Information Quarterly, 39, 10.1016/j.giq.2022.101724 · DOI
  13. Jørgensen, 2007, Public values: An inventory, Administration and Society, 39, 354, 10.1177/0095399707300703 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Karunasena, 2012, Critical factors for evaluating the public value of e-government in Sri Lanka, Government Information Quarterly, 29, 76, 10.1016/j.giq.2011.04.005 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Luo, 2021, A critical review of state-of-the-art chatbot designs and applications, WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 12, 1
  16. Makasi, 2020, Chatbot-mediated public service delivery: A public service value-based framework, First Monday, 25
  17. Makasi, 2022, Public service values and chatbots in the public sector: Reconciling designer efforts and user expectations, 2334, 10.24251/HICSS.2022.292 · DOI
  18. Makasi, 2021, A typology of chatbots in public service delivery, IEEE Software, 39, 58, 10.1109/MS.2021.3073674 · DOI
  19. Maragno, 2021, E-government for public values creation: A systematic literature review, 386
  20. Meynhardt, 2009, Public value inside: What is public value creation?, International Journal of Public Administration, 32, 192, 10.1080/01900690902732632 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Minelli, 2018, Citizen feedback as a tool for continuous improvement in local bodies, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 31, 46, 10.1108/IJPSM-01-2017-0010 · DOI
  22. van Noordt, 2022, Artificial intelligence for the public sector: results of landscaping the use of AI in government across the European Union, Government Information Quarterly, 39, 101714, 10.1016/j.giq.2022.101714 · DOI · Paper page
  23. O‘Flynn, 2021, Where to for public value? Taking stock and moving on, International Journal of Public Administration, 44, 867, 10.1080/01900692.2021.1884696 · DOI
  24. Rose, 2014, Managing e-government: Value positions and relationships, Information Systems Journal, 25, 531, 10.1111/isj.12052 · DOI
  25. Scupola, 2022, Co-production in digital transformation of administration and public value creation: The case of Denmark, Government Information Quarterly, 39, 10.1016/j.giq.2021.101650 · DOI
  26. Twizeyimana, 2019, The public value of E-government: A literature review, Government Information Quarterly, 36, 167, 10.1016/j.giq.2019.01.001 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Vassilakopoulou, 2022, Developing human/AI interactions for chat-based customer services: Lessons learned from the Norwegian government, European Journal of Information Systems, 32, 10, 10.1080/0960085X.2022.2096490 · DOI
  28. Verne, 2022, How can I help you? A chatbot’s answers to citizens’ information needs, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 34, 233
  29. Zhang, 2022, Orchestrating artificial intelligence for urban sustainability, Government Information Quarterly, 39, 10.1016/j.giq.2022.101720 · DOI
  30. Zhang, 2023, Organizational factors affecting successful implementation of chatbots for customer service, Journal of Internet Commerce, 22, 122, 10.1080/15332861.2021.1966723 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Larsen, A. G., & Følstad, A.
Venue
Government Information Quarterly
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-06
Volume
41
Issue
2
Pages
101927
ISSN
0740-624X
DOI
10.1016/j.giq.2024.101927
Cited by
83
References
9
Language
en
Licence
Funders
Horizon 2020

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.