Applsci 13 02415 v3
Applsci 13 02415 v3
sciences
Article
The Innovative Use of Intelligent Chatbot for Sustainable
Health Education Admission Process: Learnt Lessons and
Good Practices
Sorin Claudiu Man 1,† , Oliviu Matei 2,† , Tudor Faragau 3,† , Laura Andreica 4, *,† and Dinu Daraba 5,†
1 Mother and Child Department, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Iuliu Hat, ieganu”,
400347 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
2 Electric, Electronic and Computer Engineering Department, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca,
400114 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
3 European Projects Department, HOLISUN, 430397 Baia Mare, Romania
4 Research and Development Department, HOLISUN, 430397 Baia Mare, Romania
5 Engineering and Technology Management Department, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca,
400114 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
* Correspondence: [email protected]
† These authors contributed equally to this work.
Abstract: This article presents the methodology of creation of an innovative used by intelligent
chatbots which support the admission process in universities. The lifecycle of the ontology, unlike the
classical lifecycles, has six stages: conceptualization, formalization, development, testing, production
and maintenance. This leads to sustainability of the chatbot, called Ana, which has been implemented
at the “Iuliu Hatieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy from Cluj-Napoca during the admis-
sion session throughout July–September 2022, for international candidates. The sustainability of the
chatbot comes from the continuous maintenance and updates of the ontology, based on candidates’
interraction with the system and updates of the admission procedures. Over time, the chatbot is able
to answer the questions according to the present situation of the admission and the real needs of the
candidates. Ana had a huge impact, succeeding to resolve a number of 5173 applicants requests, and
only 809 messages was transferred to the human operators, statistics which show a high cost-benefit
Citation: Man, S.C.; Matei, O.;
improvement in terms of reducing the travel expenses for the candidates and also for the university.
Faragau, T.; Andreica, L.; Daraba, D.
The article also summarizes the good practices in developing and use of such an intelligent chatbot.
The Innovative Use of Intelligent
Chatbot for Sustainable Health
Education Admission Process. Learnt
Keywords: intelligent; chatbot; innovation; ontology; methodology; university; admission; sustainability
Lessons and Good Practices. Appl.
Sci. 2023, 13, 2415. https://doi.org/
10.3390/app13042415
1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Xianpeng Wang
In the yearly university admission period, universities are overwhelmed by the huge
Received: 2 December 2022 numbers of candidates visiting the admission departments of each university, with ques-
Revised: 18 January 2023 tions about the university, admission requirements and related documents [1]. This poses a
Accepted: 19 January 2023 challenge for most admission teams, as the staff involved in the admission usually partake
Published: 13 February 2023
in one to one conversations with candidates. This is not a cost effective method of commu-
nication in such situations, and in some cases physically visiting the admission centers,
waiting in queues in order to get answers from the admission team might be seen too costly
and time consuming for candidates in order to received the required answers and consider
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
applying for a specific university.
This article is an open access article
1.1. Background
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Our study will focus on international candidates and the digitization of the traditional
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// international university admission process, which provides a specific set of challenges
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ to candidates, such as sending the application form and admission documents through
4.0/). national and international postal services to the admission center, which can be costly,
stressful, and in some cases bear the risk of losing the admission documents through
postal services, or the risk that candidates cannot timely sent the necessary or additional
documents required by the admission staff in the imposed deadline, due to slow postal
operators, strikes, customs, etc.
Moreover communication efforts in the pre-admission and admission period in univer-
sities are usually conducted traditionally, which requires the availability of a large number
of university administrative staff in order to communicate on an individual basis, with a
large number of candidates in a short period of time [2]. Communication methods for uni-
versity admissions has evolved from personal physical discussion between candidates and
the admission academic staff, to emails and call centers, as competition between universities
pushes them to accept multiple forms of communication, in order to attract candidates.
Simultaneously with the increased competition between universities in order to at-
tract candidates, seen with the acceptance of multiple forms of communication, the recent
COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the worldwide transition from the traditional physical
admission to the modern web based online admission systems [3], such as Socrates, devel-
oped by Holisun (http://www.holisun.com/en/, accessed on 15 January 2023), in order to
respond to the social distance rules imposed by the pandemic. As in the admission period
of 2019–2020 most of the university admissions were online, an overwhelming number of
candidates started using online forms of communication with the admission staff, those
online forms of communication provides a large database with the questions addressed to
the admission staff, most times those questions being repetitive ones.
Even if most universities are using Q&A public documents addressing the most fre-
quently asked questions, the majority of candidates still prefer using personal forms of
communication, such as writing emails to the administrative staff in order to get answers
to their inquiries, as the majority of candidates seem to not be interested in reading Q&A
documents. This creates a problem for universities across the world, as answering those
repetitive questions by the academic staff requires significant labor hours and the avail-
ability of a large admission staff, but now is possible to digitize the most frequent Q&A,
associated with the admission process, by defining those questions and answers as a natural
language processing problem [4], that can be used as a system of dialogues between candidates
and a Q&A database through an automated chat box, used primarily to provide an interface
of communication between candidates and the Q&A database, this technology is most
widely and commonly known as “chatbot” [5].
2. Related Work
The general idea of using artificial intelligence (A.I.) techniques in order to simulate
human conversation can be traced back to 1950’s, when the famous Alan Turing, best
known for its Cryptanalyst merits during World War II [10], developed the famous Turing
Test [11], in which we can determine if the entity with whom we are having a conversation
is a real personal or a computer program.
With the arrival of the graphical user interfaces and the development of natural language
algorithms, a new generation of more complex chatbots were developed, with applications
in the public, private and higher education areas, such as MegaHall [13], CONVERSE [14],
ELIZABETH and HEXBOT [15], ALICE [16] and Siri [17], developed by the Apple Corpo-
ration, that alongside Alexa from Amazon, Cortana from Microsoft and Google Assistant
from Google are using advanced software, data mining and machine learning to create the
most popular and advanced speech conversation chatbots in the world. The chatbot market
is rapidly developing and is predicted to reach 1,23 billion dollars by 2025, according
to [18].
In order to reduce labor costs, chatbots using natural language processing and machine
learning algorithms are developed in order to assure a chat like interface for common
questions addressed by candidates and are designed to provide answers similarly to how
humans do, but automatically and on a much larger scale, without any human intervention.
Colace et al. [27] presents the realization of a chatbot prototype in the educational
domain, which was developed a system to provide support to university students on some
courses. The initial purpose has focused on the design of the specific architecture, model to
manage communication and furnish the right answers to the student. Dimitriadis shows
in [28] that Pounce Chatbot used within Georgia University increased the enrolment with
3.9% and reduced the summer melt of the students with 21.4%.
Ana is meant to be used only for the university application stage (see Figure 1), as
that is the step where candidates have the most significant number of questions and need
the most support and tutoring.
However, the chatbot has to be very adaptive, therefore the lifecycle is agile [31], with
continuous updates based on the immediate needs of the users, rather than frozen in a
rigid structure, such as waterfall [32].
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2415 8 of 24
3.4.1. Conceptualization
The conceptualization starts before developing the ontology of the chatbot, based
on previous questions of the users. They are to be collated and then canonicalized, as
there are many variations of the same question or the answers are slightly similar. And,
finally, the statements are to be very personalized, appealing to the user and stated from
her perspective.
The corpus of questions comes partially from the questions raised by the prospects
in the previous admission session and partially from the clerks managing the process. All
the specifications are structured in a table manner, as shown in Tables 1 and 2. For each
question (hop, node), we defined:
• node ID, as xxx.yyy.zzz, where xxx means a main node, xxx.yyy means a sub-node,
xxx.yyy.zzz means a sub-sub-bode and so on. This is displayed in column ID.
• the content (information, action), shown in column Content.
• keywords used for accessing the respective info when the user types in her question.
These are listed in column Keywords. The keywords concept is designed to admit
possible typing errors like skipping a letter, or inversion of two letters. For this
situation we used the * symbol which allows the keyword to have as many errors as
we indicate in the beginning.
• related nodes, represented by their ID’s in column Related nodes.
Table 1. The questions known by the chatbot (I).
3.4.2. Formalisation
We want the candidates to have the best user experience while using Ana chatbot. This
means a feeling of interacting with a human and optimal access to knowledge, which is
achieved in four ways. Firstly, the chatbot is called Ana, name ranked the 16th in the top
of the most popular human names [33]. The name is feminine as there is a gender bias
expectation in such applications, as reported by Feine et al. in [34] and McDonnell and
Baxter in [35]. Secondly, once in a while, the chatbot simulates the typing delay of a human
operator, which means that the chatbot waits a couple of seconds before prompting its
reply. Thirdly, for a complete user experience the chatbot interacts in several modes such
as buttons to be selected by the user and free text. And fourthly the ontology is structured
in a tree manner with optimal access to knowledge. The tree is built as suggested by
Singer et al. in [36]. For each level of the tree, the information gain is computed according
to the formula:
IG (S, a) = H (S) − H (S| a) (1)
where IG (S, a) is the information for the dataset S for the variable a for a random variable,
H (S) is the entropy for the dataset before any change (described above) and H (S| a) is the
conditional entropy for the dataset given the variable a. In other words, the information
gain is the difference in entropy of the information of the whole ontology minus the entropy
of the sub-ontologies split by the attribute a [37].
The entropy is defined as [38]:
n
H (S) = − ∑ P(si )logP(si ) (2)
i =1
where H (S) is the information entropy of the set S = s1 , s2 , . . . , sn . log is the logarithm, the
choice of base varying between different applications. Base 2 gives the unit of bits, while
base e gives the “natural units” nat, and base 10 gives a unit called “dits”.
The attribute with the highest discrimination power (which induces the largest infor-
mation gain) is set as node [36].
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2415 10 of 24
For ethical and legal reasons, however the first replies of the chatbot are self-introductory
and presenting the terms and conditions of use.
3.4.3. Development
The structure of the chatbot ontology is depicted in Figure 4. The semantics of the
nodes are collated in Tables 1 and 2. There are 6n main nodes corresponding to the
main steps a conversation could have. From here on the nodes are represented by their
ID’s, as displaying the actual content would make the presentation, explanations and
graphs cumbersome.
The first three nodes (100, 200, 300) contain introductory sentences such as Welcome to
the International Students Department. My name is Ana, your virtual assistant. The transition
between these nodes (100, 200, 300) is automatic and the links are marked with the purple
arrow. The flow between 300 and 400 is conditioned by the acceptance of GDPR policy by
the user, otherwise the chat closed.
The node 400 represents the main menu containing the main options. From statement
100 to 400.*.*.*, the ontology is formalised as a tree (see Section 3.4.2). All the leaves of this
tree (400.*.*.*) should provide answers to the user, but we also take into account that the
answer is not the proper one. Therefore from those leaves, the user is provided with three
options, marked as node 600:
• to go to the main menu (400), by typing start;
• to contact an operator (400.100), by typing operator;
• to close the chat, by typing thank you.
If a text input by the user is not understood (does not match sufficiently any of
the ontological nodes), the bot outputs the text Unfortunately, I do not understand your
question and sends an email to the knowledge expert, so that she can improve the ontology
continuously based on real needs of the candidates.
3.4.4. Testing
The trust in chatbots is very important from a social perspective [39], therefore the
tests were extensive and addressed the ontology as well as the business logic. The stage of
the lifecycle has been performed by a very competent team consisting of all people involved
in admission process over the years.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2415 11 of 24
As the chatbot is to be used by people with various cultural and educational back-
ground, a special attention was given to the structure of the ontology and the way it is
displayed, therefore we performed five sets of usability tests, aiming at:
• The users’ perception of human-like chatbot;
• The proper way to interact with a user;
• The depth of the ontological tree;
• The optimal number of available options;
• The number of interconnections between; ontological nodes;
The usability tests have been performed on 28 people (admission staff and students)
using the Cognitive Walkthrough Method [40], which is an analytic inspection used to
evaluate prototypes from the user’s perspective. The testers take the role of the user
and “walk through” the process of using the product. The analysis uses storyboards and
expert evaluation is based on the information obtained in the conceptualization phase (see
Section 3.4.1). All 28 people involved in testing have either social or medical background,
so none of them has strong IT-related skills, other than the usual ones.
The usability related to a specific aspect of the chatbot was measured by asking the
subjects to rate it on a scale from 1 to 100. The charts display the average perceived usability
on the vertical axis, where 0 means no usability and 100% means full ergonomy with respect
to that specific aspect.
The information retrieval time was determined based on the logs of the chatbot and
was measured as the total interaction time of the user with the chatbot divided by the
number of information items searched and found by the users, based on their declaration.
old-school typing-in. The usability was graded on a scale from 1 to 100 by the users and
Figure 6 displays the average grades for each possible type of interaction.
ontology (from 3 to 8). The Y axes represent the usability of the chatbot as perceived by the
user (image on the left), respectively the relative average time (in seconds) needed to retrieve
the information (image on the right). The usability is having a higher percentage when
the options to be chosen are fewer, which indicates that the accessibility to information
reaches out to all of the four principles from a UX perspective: perceivable, operable,
understandable, and robust [41].
The optimal number of available options should not exceed six, due to UX principles
and the dimension of the screen utilized, because the visibility on the chatbot popup is
limited, and this can lead to leakage of important information. The value of 6 options
is a trade-off between the perceived usability (left chart, where usability is measured in
percentages) and the information retrieval time (right chart, where the time is measured
in seconds).
dling sensitive data. On top of security measures such as authorization, authentication, and
end-to-end encryption of communication channels, the following measures will be taken to
preserve the candidate’s anonymity and are considered compliant with the privacy and
security guidelines. Therefore the chatbot, but especially its integration with third-party
data sources has been monitored against the top 10 OWASP security threats [43].
3.4.6. Maintenance
The chatbot is dynamic and is to be adapted to the context in which it operates and
provides answers. Therefore its maintenance is crucial, more important than in most other
cases of intelligent software systems [44]. Moreover, the testing phase was not exhaustive,
therefore prolonged somehow into the production stage, hence the maintenance has also a
second role, to fix possible inadvertence.
The maintenance of the chatbot requires a knowledge expert. The continuous develop-
ment and maintenance of the ontology relies on:
• each stage of the admission process brings up new required questions and needs and
leaves out caducous information;
• each question typed by the user and unanswered by the chatbot might be a new fact
to be asserted to the ontology;
• other questions coming by other means (e.g., email, phone) are to be formalized and
inserted into the ontological tree.
The feedback was requested at the end of each chat as a likable or dislikeable experi-
ence, as this is a classical way of collecting feedback from users online, as seen in Figure 9.
Dislikes numbers decrease over time, while the number of likes increases at the same time.
There is a little spike in dislikes in week 6 when the number of candidates was the highest,
and human operators were not able to answer all the candidate’s questions received over
the phone, email, and WhatsApp.
A significant amount of maintenance was allocated for adjusting the chatbot to the
needs and questions of candidates during the admission sessions. The obsolescence of the
information, such as admission deadlines, fees, places available for registration, etc., has
been taken into account, due to the fact that it needs to be updated every year based on
the admission methodology of the university, as well as in accordance with the decisions
of the Ministry of Education. The number of available seats changes from one admission
session to another, also there are questions that do not apply during the admission and are
not relevant, but also there are questions that have the same answer throughout the time.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2415 15 of 24
Candidates Responses
Days Total
Message to From
Mess.
Total
Chats from Bot Operator Bot Operator
mess.
candid.
Monday*(3) 314 1543 5569 1347 196 3928 98
Tuesday*(2) 161 780 2823 649 131 1946 97
Wednesday*(2) 189 827 3141 708 119 2125 189
Thursday*(2) 172 877 3093 653 224 2082 134
Friday*(3) 241 939 3721 818 121 2698 84
Saturday*(3) 149 565 2312 562 3 1744 3
Sunday*(3) 116 451 1782 436 15 1320 11
Total 1342 5982 22,441 5173 809 15,843 616
Average 192 855 3206 739 116 2263 88
Avg. per
75 332 1247 287 45 880 34
day
The 75 average number of daily opened chats, or the total of 1342 open chats in the
18 day period corresponds to 40.27% of the number of international candidates (without
Romanian citizenship) who submitted their online admission at UMF Cluj, out of which
78.51% (2616) were from Europe, 13.09% (436) from Africa, 5.58% (194) from Asia, 2.49%
(83) from North America and only 0.09% (3) from South America, as seen in Figure 11, and
more detailed in Table 4.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2415 16 of 24
Table 4. International Candidates during the 2022 UMF Cluj International Admission.
No. Country % No. Country % No. Country %
1 France 61.40% 27 Cyprus 0.24% 53 Ukraine 0.06%
2 Germany 7.26% 28 Lebanon 0.21% 54 Georgia 0.06%
3 Morocco 6.66% 29 Pakistan 0.18% 55 Island 0.06%
4 Tunisia 3.87% 30 Austria 0.18% 56 Somalia 0.03%
5 Italy 1.74% 31 Iran 0.15% 57 Sudan 0.03%
6 Israel 1.65% 32 Luxembourg 0.15% 58 Benin 0.03%
7 U.A.E. 1.50% 33 Afghanistan 0.12% 59 Burkina Faso 0.03%
8 Switzerland 1.44% 34 Cameroon 0.12% 60 Cambodia 0.03%
9 Belgium 1.35% 35 Egypt 0.12% 61 Kenya 0.03%
10 Sweden 1.20% 36 Ghana 0.12% 62 Mauritania 0.03%
11 Guadeloupe 1.14% 37 Nigeria 0.12% 63 Niger 0.03%
12 Reunion 0.87% 38 Jordan 0.12% 64 Gabon 0.03%
13 Greece 0.78% 39 Kuwait 0.12% 64 Antigua & Barbuda 0.03%
14 Canada 0.69% 40 South Africa 0.09% 66 Haiti 0.03%
15 Saudi Arabia 0.66% 41 Dem. Rep. Congo 0.09% 67 East Timor 0.03%
16 United States 0.54% 42 Madagascar 0.09% 68 South Korea 0.03%
17 Qatar 0.51% 43 Brazil 0.09% 69 Indonesia 0.03%
18 United Kingdom 0.51% 44 Oman 0.09% 70 Malaysia 0.03%
19 Algeria 0.42% 45 Australia 0.09% 71 Poland 0.03%
20 Ireland 0.39% 46 Japan 0.09% 72 Hungary 0.03%
21 Spain 0.30% 47 Netherlands 0.09% 73 Albania 0.03%
22 Finland 0.30% 48 Senegal 0.06% 74 Croatia 0.03%
23 India 0.27% 49 Ethiopia 0.06% 75 Denmark 0.03%
24 Turkey 0.27% 50 Jamaica 0.06% 76 Monaco 0.03%
25 Norway 0.24% 51 Palestine 0.06%
26 Moldova 0.24% 52 Portugal 0.06%
Figure 11. The distribution of the candidates based on their continent of origin.
The usefulness of using Ana Chatbot as a bilingual (English and French) automated
support assistant in a multicultural and international environment (See Figure 11) is clearly
seen at UMF Cluj, as a large portion of international candidates from 76 countries used the
chatbot as their primary support assistant, with a small ratio of “Dislikes” (See Figure 9)
and a small number of redirected chats to human operators (See Figure 12).
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2415 17 of 24
In the analyzed 18 days in which Ana worked at UMF alongside human operators, the
chatbot received a total of 5982 messages from candidates with a total of 16,459 responses
out of which 15,843 (96.3%) were from Ana, as such it can be argued that Ana implementa-
tion proved successful in providing a 24/7 online admission support and assuring that the
most basic and repetitive questions are addressed by the chatbot, and not by admission staff
at UMF Cluj, which received only 809 messages from candidates (13.52%), representing the
more complex questions that Ana couldn’t yet provide answers (See Table 3).
As depicted in Figures 12 and 13 we can see that with the exception of Wednesday,
responses from human operators to candidates inquires are less then 1, meaning that a
large number of questions addressed by candidates to operators are not answered in the
day they are addressed. This is due to the fact that UMF Cluj, like most universities, has
only a Monday–Friday, 8 working hours schedule for answering questions through its
admission staff, moreover as most candidates from the 2022 international admission were
on different time zones than Eastern European Summer Time (EEST), there are also cases
in which time zones between Romania and the candidates country are very different and
thus provides a challenge for personal communication between international university
candidates and the local admission staff.
In this instance, if candidates require the intervention of the academic staff on week-
ends or outside normal 9 AM–5 PM EEST working hours, they are told to send an email or
reconnect between 9 AM–5 PM EEST from Monday to Friday. This lack of time synchroniza-
tions also represents one of the benefits of using Ana instead of relying heavily on human
operators, as Ana not only works 24/7 but also adapts to previous more complex questions
addressed to human operators, as in time its machine learning capabilities are developing
alongside its Q&A database, which translates into a lesser reliance on human operators.
Figure 14. The number of messages from the candidates, from the bot, from the operator and the
number of chats to the operator and to the bot.
For most of the questions addressed by candidates in an average chat, 86.45% were
addressed to Ana, and only 13.54% of the questions were redirected to human operators.
Out of the total questions addressed to human operators per chat, only 76.66% of them
received a response (see Figure 14), as the admission staff at UMF responsible for chat
responses usually work from 9 AM–5 PM (EEST) and only from Monday to Friday, in this
sense chats opened by candidates that require human operators don’t receive a response
in the weekends and/or outside business working hours. During the admission session,
some users did not get the desired info directly from the chatbot. However, the number of
unanswered questions decreased over time, as depicted in Figure 15.
Figure 15. Number of messages without an answer from the chatbot or operator.
The English version of the ontology contains 945 words structured in 45 nodes as
shown in Section 3.4.3, which means an average of 21 words per message. As shown
by Laufer et al. [45], adults typically type at about 40 words per minute when writing
for enjoyment and 5 words per minute for in-depth essays or articles, with an average
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2415 19 of 24
of 22.5 words per minute. This means that typing a message would require 0.93 min on
average. As summarized in Table 3, the chatbot posted 15,843 messages, meaning 246.45 h
saved in the 17 days between the 9th and the 26th of July, which account for 13.69 h
(equivalent of 1.71 man-days) gained daily in favour of other tasks.
• For European countries, GDPR compliance is a must and the related conditions should
be served at the very beginning of the chat before the first action is required from
the user.
6. Conclusions
The article presents a chatbot used during the admission of foreign students at UMF
Cluj University in July 2022.
The chatbot, called Ana has run 1342 times and forwarded the user to the operator 216
times, which means coverage of 83.9%. Due to the high amount of administrative work
during the admission session, the knowledge expert succeeded to increased Ana’s ontology
by barely 18.5%. For the next session, the knowledge is expected to increase by at least
120%. Due to business-related limitations, Ana was used only during the last 37.5% of the
entire period. However, a whole admission session could be more conclusive and would
provide deeper insight into what a chatbot is, how it works, and the way it improves the
communication between the candidates and the administrative staff.
Each admission session offers a huge amount of new information that can be converted
into new nodes in the ontology. This leads to a better performing chatbot, that is more
and more adapted to the needs of the candidates, and that leads to a higher response
rate, that reduce to a minimum all the costs with the admission process. Obviously, the
sustainability can be achieved by continuous maintenance of the chatbot and ontology
and that is why the lifecycle has two extra steps Section 3, unlike the classical lifecycles:
deployment into production and maintenance.
Generating more statistics, reports, and future prediction based on the previous
admission session will help the university to improve its educational offer, to be more
connected to the candidate’s needs all over the world, and to co-design and co-create with
them the future of the university in the matter of creative learning in an ICT world.
Author Contributions: Project administration: S.C.M.; Methodology: O.M.; Software: L.A. and O.M.;
Vizualization: L.A. and T.F.; Validation: S.C.M. and D.D.; Writing: L.A., T.F. and O.M. All authors
have read and agreed to the published veriosn of the manuscript.
Funding: This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research
and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101017057 (sub-grant number DIH4AI OC1
010-SCALE).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the cor-
responding author. The data belongs to the University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Iuliu Hatieganu”
from Cluj-Napoca, Romania (www.umfcluj.ro, accessed on 15 January 2023).
Acknowledgments: The research reported in this article has been done within HOLISUN (www.
holisun.com, accessed on 15 January 2023) company, during the admission session at the University of
Medicine and Pharmacy “Iuliu Hatieganu” from Cluj-Napoca, Romania (www.umfcluj.ro, accessed
on 15 January 2023).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sample Availability: Ana chatbot is available on https://admissions.umfcluj.ro/, accessed on 15
January 2023 during the admission sessions.
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
References
1. Martínez-García, I.; Nielsen, T.; Alastor, E. Perceived stress and perceived lack of control of spanish education-degree university
students: Differences dependent on degree year, basis for admission and gender. Psychol. Rep. 2021, 125, 1824–1851. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
2. Bakti, R.; Hartono, S. The Influence of Transformational Leadership and work Discipline on the Work Performance of Education
Service Employees. Multicult. Educ. 2022, 8, 109–125.
3. Tuhuteru, H.; Siwalette, R. System Design and Implementation of Online Admission System at XYZ University. Inspir. J. Teknol.
Inf. Dan Komun. 2022, 12, 105–117. [CrossRef]
4. Barus, S.P.; Surijati, E. Chatbot with Dialogflow for FAQ Services in Matana University Library. Int. J. Informatics Comput. 2022, 3,
62–70. [CrossRef]
5. Chandra, Y.W.; Suyanto, S. Indonesian chatbot of university admission using a question answering system based on sequence-to-
sequence model. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2019, 157, 367–374. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2415 23 of 24
6. Mariacher, N.; Schlögl, S.; Monz, A. Investigating perceptions of social intelligence in simulated human-chatbot interactions. In
Progresses in Artificial Intelligence and Neural Systems; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 513–529.
7. Goot, M.J.; Hafkamp, L.; Dankfort, Z. Customer service chatbots: A qualitative interview study into the communication journey
of customers. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Chatbot Research and Design, Online, 23–24 November 2020;
pp. 190–204.
8. Patel, N.P.; Parikh, D.R.; Patel, D.A.; Patel, R.R. Ai and web-based human-like interactive university chatbot (unibot). In Proceed-
ings of the 2019 3rd international conference on electronics, communication and aerospace technology (ICECA), Coimbatore,
India, 12–14 June 2019; pp. 148–150.
9. Chocarro, R.; Cortiñas, M.; Marcos-Matás, G. Teachers’ attitudes towards chatbots in education: A technology acceptance model
approach considering the effect of social language, bot proactiveness, and users’ characteristics. Educ. Stud. 2021, 1–19. [CrossRef]
10. Vlasiuk, R.; Petko, L. Alan Turing: A Founding Father of Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence and Modern Cognitive Science.
Ph.D. Thesis, Lviv Polytechnic National University, Lviv, Ukraine, 2022.
11. Saygin, A.P.; Cicekli, I.; Akman, V. Turing test: 50 years later. Minds Mach. 2020, 10, 463–518. [CrossRef]
12. Bassett, C. Apostasy in the temple of technology: ELIZA the more than mechanical therapist. In Anti-Computing; Manchester
University Press: Manchester, UK, 2022; pp. 168–185.
13. Agarwal, R.; Wadhwa, M. Review of state-of-the-art design techniques for chatbots. SN Comput. Sci. 2020, 1, 1–12. [CrossRef]
14. Xie, T.; Yang, X.; Lin, A.S.; Wu, F.; Hashimoto, K.; Qu, J.; Kang, Y.M.; Yin, W.; Wang, H.; Yavuz, S. Converse–A Tree-Based Modular
Task-Oriented Dialogue System. arXiv 2022, arXiv:2203.12187.
15. Park, D.M.; Jeong, S.S.; Seo, Y.S. Systematic Review on Chatbot Techniques and Applications. J. Inf. Process. Syst. 2022, 18, 26–47.
16. Tharammal, M.K.P.; Bashir, M.N.; Yusof, K.M.B.; Iqbal, S. ALICE Pattern Matching Based Chatbot for Natural Language
Communication: System Development and Testing. iKSP J. Comput. Sci. Eng. 2022, 2, 34–42.
17. Thomas, L.; Kumar, M.; Prashanth, B.S.; Sneha, H.R. Seq2seq and Legacy techniques enabled Chatbot with Voice assistance. In
Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE 2nd Mysore Sub Section International Conference (MysuruCon), Mysuru, India, 16–17 October
2022; pp. 1–4.
18. Kaczorowska-Spychalska, D. Chatbots in marketing. Management 2019, 23, 251–270. [CrossRef]
19. Hughes, T.M.; Leafstedt, J.M. Communicating with Generation Z. The COVID-19 Impact on Higher Education Stakeholders and
Institutional Services; Lexington Books: Lanham, MD, USA, 2022; Volume 93.
20. Barrett, M.; Branson, L.; Carter, S.; DeLeon, F.; Ellis, J.; Gundlach, C.; Lee, D. Using artificial intelligence to enhance educational
opportunities and student services in higher education. Inquiry J. Va. Community Coll. 2019, 22, 11.
21. Bačanin Džakula, N. Singibot-a student services chatbot. In Sinteza 2020-International Scientific Conference on Information Technology
and Data Related Research; Singidunum University: Belgrade, Serbia, 2020; pp. 318–323.
22. Hersi, A.H.; Hassan, M.M.; Hassan, A.A.; Mahdi, M.A.; Abdulle, A.W. An Intelligent Somali Language Chatbot Serving as an Online
Admission Help Desk; SORER: Mogadishu, Somalia, 2021.
23. Nazir, A.; Khan, M.Y.; Ahmed, T.; Jami, S.I.; Wasi, S. A novel approach for ontology-driven information retrieving chatbot for
fashion brands. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. IJACSA 2019, 10. [CrossRef]
24. Vegesna, A.; Jain, P.; Porwal, D. Ontology based chatbot (for e-commerce website). Int. J. Comput. Appl. 2020, 179, 51–55.
[CrossRef]
25. Ranoliya, B.R.; Raghuwanshi, N.; Singh, S. Chatbot for university related faqs. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference
on Advances in Computing, Communications and Informatics (ICACCI), Udupi, India, 13–16 September 2017; pp. 1525–1530.
26. AgusSantoso, H.; Anisa, SriWinarsih, N.; Mulyanto, E.; Wilujeng Saraswati, G.; ; Enggar Sukmana, S.; Rustad, S.; SyaifurRohman,
M.; Nugraha, A.; Firdausillah, F. Dinus intelligent assistance (dina) chatbot for university admission services. In Proceedings of
the 2018 International Seminar on Application for Technology of Information and Communication, Semarang, Indonesia, 21–22
September 2018; pp. 417–423.
27. Colace, F.; DeSanto, M.; Lombardi, M.; Pascale, F.; Pietrosanto, A.; Lemma, S. Chatbot for e-learning: A case of study. Int. J. Mech.
Eng. Robot. Res. 2018, 7, 528–533. [CrossRef]
28. Dimitriadis, G. Evolution in education: Chatbots. Homo Virtualis 2020, 3, 47–54. [CrossRef]
29. McCarty, T.V.; Light, J.C. Supporting peer interactions for students with complex communication needs in inclusive settings:
Paraeducator roles. Perspect. Asha Spec. Interest Groups 2022, 7, 229–244. [CrossRef]
30. Sattar, A.; Surin, E.S.M.; Ahmad, M.N.; Ahmad, M.; Mahmood, A.K. Comparative analysis of methodologies for domain ontology
development: A systematic review. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 2020, 11. [CrossRef]
31. Abdelghany, A.; Darwish, N.R.; Hefni, H.A. An agile methodology for ontology development. Int. J. Intell. Eng. Syst. 2019, 12,
170–181. [CrossRef]
32. Kramer, M. Best practices in systems development lifecycle: An analyses based on the waterfall model. Rev. Bus. Financ. Stud.
2018, 9, 77–84.
33. Sidhu, D.M.; Deschamps, K.; Bourdage, J.S.; Pexman, P.M. Does the name say it all? Investigating phoneme-personality sound
symbolism in first names. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2019, 148, 1595. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Feine, J.; Gnewuch, U.; Morana, S.; Maedche, A. Gender bias in chatbot design. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on
Chatbot Research and Design, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 19–20 November 2019; pp. 79–93.
35. McDonnell, M.; Baxter, D. Chatbots and gender stereotyping. Interact. Comput. 2019, 31, 116–121. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2415 24 of 24
36. Singer, G.; Anuar, R.; Ben-Gal, I. A weighted information-gain measure for ordinal classification trees. Expert Syst. Appl. 2020,
152, 113375. [CrossRef]
37. Zebari, R.; Abdulazeez, A.; Zeebaree, D.; Zebari, D.; Saeed, J. A comprehensive review of dimensionality reduction techniques for
feature selection and feature extraction. J. Appl. Sci. Technol. Trends 2020, 1, 56–70. [CrossRef]
38. Wu, W.; Hou, J.; Zhang, Z.; Li, F.; Zhang, R.; Gao, L.; Ni, H.; Zhang, T.; Long, H.; Lei, M.; et al. Information entropy-based strategy
for the quantitative evaluation of extensive hyperspectral images to better unveil spatial heterogeneity in mass spectrometry
imaging. Anal. Chem. 2022, 94, 10355–10366. [CrossRef]
39. Toader, D.C.; Boca, G.; Toader, R.; Măcelaru, M.; Toader, C.; Ighian, D.; Rădulescu, A.T. The effect of social presence and chatbot
errors on trust. Sustainability 2020, 12, 256. [CrossRef]
40. Weninger, M.; Grünbacher, P.; G.; er E.; Schörgenhumer, A. Evaluating an interactive memory analysis tool: Findings from a
cognitive walkthrough and a user study. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2020, 4, 1–37. [CrossRef]
41. Díaz, E.; Arenas, J.J.; Moquillaza, A.; Paz, F. A systematic literature review about quantitative metrics to evaluate the usability of
e-commerce web sites. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Human Systems Integration, Modena, Italy,
19–21 February 2019; pp. 332–338.
42. Kaushal, V.; Yadav, R. Exploring B2B Chatbots Adoption Experiences: Lessons for Successful Implementation in Businesses. Res.
Sq. 2022, preprint. [CrossRef]
43. Lala, S.K.; Kumar, A.; Subbulakshmi, T. Secure web development using owasp guidelines. In Proceedings of the 2021 5th
International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Control Systems (ICICCS), Madurai, India, 6–8 May 2021; pp. 323–332.
44. Sarferaz, S. Lifecycle Management. In Compendium on Enterprise Resource Planning; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 559–
570.
45. Batia, L.; Rozovski-Roitblat, B. Incidental vocabulary acquisition: The effects of task type, word occurrence and their combination.
Lang. Teach. Res. 2011 15, 391–411.
46. Baxter, D.; McDonnell, M.; McLoughlin, R. Impact of chatbot gender on user’s stereotypical perception and satisfaction. In
Proceedings of the 32nd International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference, Belfast, UK, 4–6 July 2018; pp. 1–5.
47. Rahul, K.; Banyal, R.K. Data lifecycle management in big data analytics. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2020, 173, 364–371. [CrossRef]
48. Matei, O.; Erdei, R.; Delinschi, D.; Andreica, L. Data based message validation as a security cornerstone in loose coupling software
architecture. In Computational Intelligence in Security for Information Systems Conference; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany,
2021; pp. 214–223.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.