Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 114 references

Improving Public Service Chatbot Design and Civic Impact: Investigation of Citizens' Perceptions of a Metro City 311 Chatbot

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Atlanta's 311 chatbot excels at isolated transactions but fails to support the community-level reporting and collective action that civic maintenance actually involves, argues a qualitative study drawing on 144 user comments and 16…

desk verdict A solid, honest qualitative study whose useful inform/report/act framework is generalizable only as a design direction, not as a proven community-wide need. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12259 v1 pith:2F6SUH35 submitted 2025-06-13 cs.HC

Jieyu Zhou , Rui Shen , Yue You , Carl DiSalvo , Lynn Dombrowski , Christopher MacLellan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords publicservicechatbotcivictechnologycommunityengagement311systemparticipatorydesignlargelanguagemodelsqualitativestudysocialtranslucence
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that public service chatbots such as a major city's 311 assistant are optimized for fast individual transactions but structurally miss the community dimension of civic problems. Drawing on 144 official post-use survey comments and 16 interviews with residents, community leaders, and a government official, the authors identify three individual-level failings—interpretation of ambiguous requests, lack of transparency about case handling, and absent social contextualization—and trace them to a deeper gap: the bot treats each report as an isolated task rather than part of collective neighborhood problem-solving. The paper's constructive claim is that chatbots should be redesigned around three community capabilities: inform (proactive, location-aware local information), report (making shared reports and co-report counts visible), and act (linking reports to volunteer and community actions). If this is right, cities should change how they evaluate and build these bots, shifting from pure efficiency metrics toward civic engagement outcomes.

What carries the argument

The paper's analytic mechanism is a two-level design diagnosis (individual versus community) combined with a constructive framework it calls inform, report, act. At the individual level, three named challenges structure the analysis: interpretation, transparency, and social contextualization. The community framework is the paper's main proposal: inform means proactive, customized, location-aware information that anticipates citizen needs; report means aggregating and visualizing shared issues (e.g., showing how many neighbors filed the same complaint); act means suggesting relevant community activities and helping leaders organize around reported problems. The paper grounds these proposals in social translucence—making socially relevant information visible to support accountability—and in the Open Civic Design model, which treats the bot as an early-stage tool for community problem identification.

What would settle it

A city could deploy a prototype chatbot with the proposed community features—proactive local notices, co-report counts, and action suggestions—alongside the existing bot, randomly assigning residents to each condition, and measure civic engagement indicators such as follow-up case tracking, attendance at neighborhood events, and repeated use over six months. If the community-featured bot produces no measurable increase in these outcomes, the paper's central claim that the current design neglects community perspective would lose its main evidential support. A simpler check would survey a demographically broader, less civically engaged sample: if they do not report the same interpretation, transparency, and social contextualization concerns, the findings are limited to already-engaged residents.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that current 311 chatbot design optimizes individual task completion—fast case creation, status checks, and information lookup—while neglecting the community perspective, even though residents report civic issues (potholes, fire hydrants, illegal dumping) that are inherently shared. Citizens experience this as three individual-level challenges: interpretation (the bot fails on complex phrasing, location jurisdiction, and updated policies), transparency (no visibility into assigned department, timeline, or prioritization), and social contextualization (no empathy or conversational flexibility, so the interaction feels transactional and isolating). The authors argue that the fix is not to make bots warmer or more human-like but to surface real-world civic networks. They propose three design opportunities—inform, report, act—that shift the bot from an individual-to-case model to an individual-to-community model, using the principle of social translucence to make community signals visible, and the Open Civic Design framework to position the bot as a tool for identifying community problems.

Load-bearing premise

The study's conclusions rest on the assumption that its 16 interviewees and 144 voluntary survey respondents represent the broader citizen population, even though recruitment through community-oriented channels like neighborhood meetings likely attracted civically engaged residents.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cities should add proactive, location-aware information to 311 chatbots so residents learn about local issues even when they did not search for them.
  • Chatbots should display co-report counts and aggregate community issues, converting individual reports into visible collective signals.
  • Chatbots should connect reports to concrete community actions, such as cleanup events or planning meetings, to move citizens from reporting to acting.
  • Improving interpretation accuracy is a prerequisite for all community features, since shared reporting and proactive context depend on reliably parsing ambiguous resident requests.
  • Transparency fixes must reach beyond the chatbot to the underlying case-management system, including assigned department, expected timeline, and prioritization logic.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The individual-versus-community diagnostic likely applies beyond 311 bots to other government AI front-ends, such as permit or benefit portals, which may also optimize single transactions at the expense of shared local knowledge.
  • A testable extension: co-report counts may be most effective for low-salience issues (like bus delays) among less engaged users, but the paper's civically engaged sample cannot confirm this, so field experiments with broader populations are needed.
  • If aggregated reporting is adopted, it carries an equity risk: coordinated majorities could dominate the collective signal and push out minority concerns, so deployment should include safeguards like stratified visibility and moderation.
  • The paper's rejection of simulated empathy implies a broader design principle for civic AI: authenticity and connection to real neighbors matter more than conversational warmth, a claim that could be tested by comparing user trust between an empathetic bot and a community-transparent bot.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a qualitative case study of the Atlanta 311 chatbot, combining 144 official open-ended survey comments with 16 interviews (residents, community leaders, and one government official). The authors report three individual-level challenges—interpretation, transparency, and social contextualization—and argue that the chatbot's design prioritizes individual task efficiency while neglecting a broader community perspective. They then propose three community-level design opportunities (inform, report, act) and discuss implications for LLM-based interpretation, civic engagement frameworks, and practical feasibility. The paper is clearly written and grounded in standard qualitative methods, including independent coding and follow-up interviews.

Significance. If the findings are robust, this paper makes a useful contribution to civic chatbot research by shifting attention from individual task completion to community-oriented functionality, and by connecting chatbot design to social translucence and Open Civic Design frameworks. The analysis of official survey data obtained through an open records request, the dual-coder thematic analysis, and the follow-up validation interviews are concrete strengths. The proposed 'inform, report, act' opportunities, along with the candid discussion of implementation barriers (privacy, bias, fraud, infrastructural fragmentation), provide a constructive agenda for future work. However, the paper's central claim about 'neglect of the community perspective' rests on evidence that is partially elicited by the study's own prompts and partially drawn from a self-selected, civically engaged sample; this makes the finding more of a design opportunity than an established deficiency.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.3.1 and §3.5] The central claim that the current chatbot 'neglects the broader community perspective' is load-bearing, but the interview evidence for it is vulnerable to priming and sampling bias. Section 3.3.1 states that, before asking participants about their community practices and how the chatbot might support civic engagement, the researchers introduced five conceptual design scenarios about community incident reminders and event advertisements. Under these conditions, participants' enthusiasm for community-oriented features may reflect researcher-provided ideas rather than spontaneously perceived gaps. Compounding this, Section 3.5 acknowledges that most participants demonstrated civic interest and that less engaged citizens may hold different expectations. This is not fatal, but it means the paper currently overstates the strength of the evidence. Please address this by (a) analyzing the 144 open-ended survey comments for community-related themes that appeared without any prompting, reporting the frequency and content of such comments; (b) clearly distinguishing prompted interview responses from spontaneous ones in the findings; and (c) revising the abstract and conclusion to describe the community-level result as a design opportunity expressed by civically engaged residents, rather than a generalized deficiency of the chatbot.
  2. [§4.2 and Abstract] The paper's strongest claim, 'the current chatbot design prioritizes the efficient completion of individual tasks but neglects the broader community perspective,' is a normative judgment that goes beyond the data. The data show that participants, many of whom were recruited through community-oriented channels, value collective reporting and proactive information; they do not show that the chatbot's individual-efficiency orientation is harmful or that a representative cross-section of 311 users perceives this as neglect. For example, Section 4.2 opens with 'there is a gap between the 311 chatbot's individual-oriented design and the participants' community-oriented practices,' which is a more defensible formulation. Please reframe the claim accordingly, for instance as 'does not currently support existing community-based practices,' and discuss the implications of the acknowledged sample bias for the generalizability of this result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§6] The conclusion says there are 'two key challenges' but then lists three: interpretation, transparency, and social contextualization. The 'two' should be corrected to 'three' or reworded as 'individual-level challenges.'
  2. [§3.5] The phrase 'One limitations of our work' should be 'One limitation of our work.'
  3. [§3.4] The description of the open-data analysis is thin: the 144 comments were categorized into 11 themes, but the themes are not listed or defined, and no information is given about how disagreements in coding were resolved or whether any inter-rater reliability metric was computed. A brief appendix or table listing the themes and coding procedure would improve transparency.
  4. [Abstract and §1] The paper uses 'public service chatbots' and 'civic chatbots' somewhat interchangeably in the introduction and discussion; clarifying the relationship between these categories (e.g., that public service chatbots are a subset of civic chatbots) would help readers place the contributions.
  5. [Figure 2] Figure 2 is described as showing where future research could go within the Social Translucence and Open Civic Design frameworks, but the caption and surrounding text do not clearly explain how the upper and lower parts map to the proposed inform/report/act features. A more explicit caption or a short annotation would aid comprehension.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim rests on interview and survey evidence, with one incidental self-citation that is not load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper is a qualitative HCI study with no equations, fitted parameters, or formal derivation chain to reduce. The central claim that the 311 chatbot prioritizes individual task efficiency and neglects the community perspective is supported by 144 official survey comments and 16 semi-structured interviews, with direct participant quotes such as S91, S16, P8, and P11, analyzed through thematic analysis. The theoretical frames (social translucence [29] and Open Civic Design [79]) are applied after the findings to interpret them, not used to force the conclusions. The only self-citation is MacLellan et al. 2018 (ref [53]) in Section 4.1.1, cited alongside [37,81] for the 'principle of natural interaction'; this is not load-bearing because the interpretation finding is independently evidenced by the survey and interview data and by the other citations. Section 3.5 explicitly acknowledges that most participants demonstrated interest in civic engagement and that less engaged citizens may hold different expectations; this is an external-validity limitation, not a circular reduction. No fitted parameter is renamed a prediction, no prior result by the same authors is invoked as a uniqueness theorem, and no known empirical pattern is merely renamed. The derivation is therefore self-contained with respect to its empirical inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the assumption that the self-selected, civically engaged sample represents broader citizen experiences, and that participants' self-reports accurately capture the chatbot's real-world impact. No invented entities or fitted parameters are introduced.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The 16 interviewees and 144 survey comments provide a representative view of citizen experiences.
    The central claims about citizen challenges rely on this sample; the paper acknowledges it is biased toward civically engaged participants (Section 3.5).
  • domain assumption Self-reported perceptions in interviews and surveys reflect actual usage and civic impact.
    The study does not measure actual civic engagement outcomes, only participants' stated experiences and expectations.
  • domain assumption Existing 311 system data is structured as described, including automatic case closure due to deadlines.
    The transparency findings rely on a single government official's statement (P16) and participant quotes; no system log analysis is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Improving Public Service Chatbot Design and Civic Impact: Investigation of Citizens' Perceptions of a Metro City 311 Chatbot." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2F6SUH35

@misc{pith2026250612259,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Improving Public Service Chatbot Design and Civic Impact: Investigation of Citizens' Perceptions of a Metro City 311 Chatbot},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2F6SUH35}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12259}
}
read the original abstract

As governments increasingly adopt digital tools, public service chatbots have emerged as a growing communication channel. This paper explores the design considerations and engagement opportunities of public service chatbots, using a 311 chatbot from a metropolitan city as a case study. Our qualitative study consisted of official survey data and 16 interviews examining stakeholder experiences and design preferences for the chatbot. We found two key areas of concern regarding these public chatbots: individual-level and community-level. At the individual level, citizens experience three key challenges: interpretation, transparency, and social contextualization. Moreover, the current chatbot design prioritizes the efficient completion of individual tasks but neglects the broader community perspective. It overlooks how individuals interact and discuss problems collectively within their communities. To address these concerns, we offer design opportunities for creating more intelligent, transparent, community-oriented chatbots that better engage individuals and their communities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.12259 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The 311 chatbot interface used by citizens. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Erickson and Kellogg’s [29] Social Translucence framework (top) and Reynante et al.’s [79] Open Civic framework (bottom) along with a depiction of where future research could go within these frameworks to better support civic engagement. [79]. City fixes serve as a baseline—not as an endpoint, but as a start￾ing point for further engagement. This aligns with our finding that community members view action not merely … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Atlanta 311. 2024. Introducing AVA. Press Releases. https://x.com/ATL311/ status/1806326715712475484

    work page arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Nadia Abbas, Asbjørn Følstad, and Cato A Bjørkli. 2022. Chatbots as part of digital government service provision–a user perspective. InInternational Workshop on Chatbot Research and Design. Springer, 66–82

    2022

  3. [3]

    John Abbott. 1995. Community participation and its relationship to community development.Community Development Journal30, 2 (1995), 158–168

    1995

  4. [4]

    Shurooq Almutairi, Sana A Khan, Mohammad Amin Kuhail, and Imran Taj

  5. [5]

    Aggeliki Androutsopoulou, Nikos Karacapilidis, Euripidis Loukis, and Yannis Charalabidis. 2019. Transforming the communication between citizens and government through AI-guided chatbots.Government information quarterly36, 2 (2019), 358–367

    2019

  6. [6]

    Muhammad Anshari and Mahani Hamdan. 2023. Enhancing e-government with a digital twin for innovation management.Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management14, 6 (2023), 1055–1065

    2023

  7. [7]

    Theo Araujo. 2018. Living up to the chatbot hype: The influence of anthropomor- phic design cues and communicative agency framing on conversational agent and company perceptions.Computers in human behavior85 (2018), 183–189

    2018

  8. [8]

    Sherry R Arnstein. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation.Journal of the American Institute of planners35, 4 (1969), 216–224

    1969

Show all 114 references
  1. [9]

    Zahra Ashktorab, Mohit Jain, Q Vera Liao, and Justin D Weisz. 2019. Resilient chatbots: Repair strategy preferences for conversational breakdowns. InPro- ceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–12

    2019

  2. [10]

    Ram G Athreya, Axel-Cyrille Ngonga Ngomo, and Ricardo Usbeck. 2018. En- hancing Community Interactions with Data-Driven Chatbots–The DBpedia Chatbot. InCompanion proceedings of the the web conference 2018. 143–146

    2018

  3. [11]

    Emmanuel Ayedoun, Yuki Hayashi, and Kazuhisa Seta. 2019. Adding commu- nicative and affective strategies to an embodied conversational agent to enhance second language learners’ willingness to communicate.International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education29 (2019), 29–57

    2019

  4. [12]

    Lucio Baccaro and Konstantinos Papadakis. 2009. The downside of participatory- deliberative public administration.Socio-Economic Review7, 2 (2009), 245–276

    2009

  5. [13]

    Xuefeng Bai, Jialong Wu, Yulong Chen, Zhongqing Wang, and Yue Zhang. 2023. Constituency parsing using llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.19462(2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Marcel Becker. 2019. Privacy in the digital age: comparing and contrasting individual versus social approaches towards privacy. 21, 4 (2019), 307–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-019-09508-z

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Maciej Besta, Nils Blach, Ales Kubicek, Robert Gerstenberger, Michal Podstawski, Lukas Gianinazzi, Joanna Gajda, Tomasz Lehmann, Hubert Niewiadomski, Piotr Nyczyk, and Torsten Hoefler. 2024. Graph of Thoughts: Solving Elaborate Problems with Large Language Models. arXiv:2308.0...

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Hugh Beyer and Karen Holtzblatt. 1999. Contextual design.interactions6, 1 (1999), 32–42

    1999

  9. [17]

    Kaj Björkqvist, Karin Österman, and Ari Kaukiainen. 2000. Social intelligence- empathy= aggression?Aggression and violent behavior5, 2 (2000), 191–200

    2000

  10. [18]

    Petter Bae Brandtzaeg and Asbjørn Følstad. 2017. Why people use chatbots. In Internet Science: 4th International Conference, INSCI 2017, Thessaloniki, Greece, November 22-24, 2017, Proceedings 4. Springer, 377–392

    2017

  11. [19]

    2012.Thematic analysis.57–71

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2012.Thematic analysis.57–71

    2012

  12. [20]

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners.Advances in neural information processing systems33 (2020), 1877–1901

    2020

  13. [21]

    Akemi Takeoka Chatfield and Christopher G Reddick. 2018. Customer agility and responsiveness through big data analytics for public value creation: A case study of Houston 311 on-demand services.Government Information Quarterly 35, 2 (2018), 336–347

    2018

  14. [22]

    Ana Paula Chaves and Marco Aurelio Gerosa. 2021. How should my chatbot interact? A survey on social characteristics in human–chatbot interaction design. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction37, 8 (2021), 729–758

    2021

  15. [23]

    David Coniam. 2008. Evaluating the language resources of chatbots for their potential in English as a second language.ReCALL20, 1 (2008), 98–116

    2008

  16. [24]

    Eric Corbett and Christopher A Le Dantec. 2018. The problem of community en- gagement: Disentangling the practices of municipal government. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–13

    2018

  17. [25]

    Benjamin R Cowan, Leigh Clark, Heloisa Candello, and Janice Tsai. 2023. Intro- duction to this special issue: guiding the conversation: new theory and design perspectives for conversational user interfaces.Human–Computer Interaction 38, 3-4 (2023), 159–167

    2023

  18. [26]

    Samuel Rhys Cox, Yi-Chieh Lee, and Wei Tsang Ooi. 2023. Comparing How a Chatbot References User Utterances from Previous Chatting Sessions: An Investigation of Users’ Privacy Concerns and Perceptions. InProceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Agent Interactio...

    2023

  19. [27]

    Joanna Drobiazgiewicz. 2018. The role of e-participation–citizen engagement in public service delivery.European Journal of Service Management26, 2 (2018), 53–60

    2018

  20. [28]

    Daniëlle Duijst. 2017. Can we improve the user experience of chatbots with personalisation.Master’s thesis. University of Amsterdam(2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Thomas Erickson and Wendy A Kellogg. 2000. Social translucence: an ap- proach to designing systems that support social processes.ACM transactions on computer-human interaction (TOCHI)7, 1 (2000), 59–83

    2000

  22. [30]

    Haiyan Fan and Marshall Scott Poole. 2006. What is personalization? Per- spectives on the design and implementation of personalization in information systems.Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce16, 3-4 DIS ’25, July 5–9, 2025, Funchal, Portugal Jieyu Zho...

    2006

  23. [31]

    Kathleen Kara Fitzpatrick, Alison Darcy, and Molly Vierhile. 2017. Delivering cognitive behavior therapy to young adults with symptoms of depression and anxiety using a fully automated conversational agent (Woebot): a randomized controlled trial.JMIR mental health4, 2 (2017), e7785

    2017

  24. [32]

    Archon Fung. 2006. Varieties of participation in complex governance.Public administration review66 (2006), 66–75

    2006

  25. [33]

    Ulrich Gnewuch, Stefan Morana, and Alexander Maedche. 2017. Towards Designing Cooperative and Social Conversational Agents for Customer Service.. InICIS. 1–13

    2017

  26. [34]

    Sarah Hartmann, Agnes Mainka, and Wolfgang G Stock. 2017. Citizen relation- ship management in local governments: The potential of 311 for public service delivery.Beyond bureaucracy: Towards sustainable governance informatisation (2017), 337–353

    2017

  27. [35]

    Michael Townsen Hicks, James Humphries, and Joe Slater. 2024. ChatGPT is bullshit.Ethics and Information Technology26, 2 (2024), 38

    2024

  28. [36]

    Annabell Ho, Jeff Hancock, and Adam S Miner. 2018. Psychological, relational, and emotional effects of self-disclosure after conversations with a chatbot. Journal of Communication68, 4 (2018), 712–733

    2018

  29. [37]

    Eric Horvitz. 1999. Principles of mixed-initiative user interfaces. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 159–166

    1999

  30. [38]

    Yen-Chia Hsu, Jennifer Cross, Paul Dille, Michael Tasota, Beatrice Dias, Randy Sargent, Ting-Hao Huang, and Illah Nourbakhsh. 2020. Smell Pittsburgh: engag- ing community citizen science for air quality.ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS)10, 4 (2020), 1–49

    2020

  31. [39]

    Jie Huang and Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang. 2022. Towards reasoning in large language models: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10403(2022)

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Shinhee Hwang, Beomjun Kim, and Keeheon Lee. 2019. A data-driven design framework for customer service chatbot. InDesign, User Experience, and Usability. Design Philosophy and Theory: 8th International Conference, DUXU 2019, Held as Part of the 21st HCI International Conferenc...

    2019

  33. [41]

    Mohit Jain, Pratyush Kumar, Ramachandra Kota, and Shwetak N Patel. 2018. Evaluating and informing the design of chatbots. InProceedings of the 2018 designing interactive systems conference. 895–906

    2018

  34. [42]

    Ziwei Ji, Nayeon Lee, Rita Frieske, Tiezheng Yu, Dan Su, Yan Xu, Etsuko Ishii, Ye Jin Bang, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. 2023. Survey of hallucination in natural language generation.Comput. Surveys55, 12 (2023), 1–38

    2023

  35. [43]

    Asim Ijaz Khwaja. 2004. Is increasing community participation always a good thing?Journal of the european economic Association2, 2-3 (2004), 427–436

    2004

  36. [44]

    Matthias Korn and Amy Voida. 2015. Creating friction: Infrastructuring civic en- gagement in everyday life. InProceedings of the fifth decennial aarhus conference on critical alternatives. 145–156

    2015

  37. [45]

    Myeong Lee, Jieshu Wang, Shawn Janzen, Susan Winter, and John Harlow. 2021. Crowdsourcing behavior in reporting civic issues: the case of Boston’s 311 systems. InAcademy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings (AOM)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Myeong Lee, Jieshu Wang, Erik Johnston, John Harlow, Eric Gordon, Shawn Janzen, and Susan Winter. 2020. Toward Understanding Civic Data Bias in 311 Systems: An Information Deserts Perspective. CSCW Workshop on Civic Technologies: Research, Practice, and Open Challenges

    2020

  39. [47]

    Susan Leigh Star. 2010. This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept.Science, technology, & human values35, 5 (2010), 601–617

    2010

  40. [48]

    Charles H Levine. 2018. Citizenship and service delivery: The promise of copro- duction. InDemocracy, bureaucracy, and the study of administration. Routledge, 280–300

    2018

  41. [49]

    Toby Jia-Jun Li, Jingya Chen, Haijun Xia, Tom M Mitchell, and Brad A Myers

  42. [50]

    Q Vera Liao, Matthew Davis, Werner Geyer, Michael Muller, and N Sadat Shami

  43. [51]

    Q Vera Liao, Muhammed Mas-ud Hussain, Praveen Chandar, Matthew Davis, Yasaman Khazaeni, Marco Patricio Crasso, Dakuo Wang, Michael Muller, N Sadat Shami, and Werner Geyer. 2018. All work and no play?. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13

    2018

  44. [52]

    2010.Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service

    Michael Lipsky. 2010.Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. Russell Sage Foundation

    2010

  45. [53]

    Christopher J MacLellan, Erik Harpstead, Robert P Marinier III, and Kenneth R Koedinger. 2018. A framework for natural cognitive system training interactions. Advances in Cognitive Systems6 (2018), 1–16

    2018

  46. [54]

    Narges Mahyar, Michael R James, Michelle M Ng, Reginald A Wu, and Steven P Dow. 2018. CommunityCrit: inviting the public to improve and evaluate urban design ideas through micro-activities. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14

    2018

  47. [55]

    Tendai Makasi, Alireza Nili, Kevin Desouza, and Mary Tate. 2020. Chatbot- mediated public service delivery: A public service value-based framework.First Monday25, 12 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    Tendai Makasi, Alireza Nili, Kevin C Desouza, and Mary Tate. 2021. A typology of chatbots in public service delivery.IEEE Software39, 3 (2021), 58–66

    2021

  49. [57]

    Nora McDonald, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Andrea Forte. 2019. Reliability and inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: Norms and guidelines for CSCW and HCI practice.Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction3, CSCW (2019), 1–23

    2019

  50. [58]

    Michael Meany and Tom Clark. 2010. Humour theory and conversational agents: An application in the development of computer-based agents.International Journal of the Humanities8, 5 (2010), 129–140

    2010

  51. [59]

    Indrani Medhi Thies, Nandita Menon, Sneha Magapu, Manisha Subramony, and Jacki O’neill. 2017. How do you want your chatbot? An exploratory Wizard-of- Oz study with young, urban Indians. InHuman-Computer Interaction-INTERACT 2017: 16th IFIP TC 13 International Conference, Mumba...

    2017

  52. [60]

    Hila Mehr, H Ash, and D Fellow. 2017. Artificial intelligence for citizen services and government.Ash Cent. Democr. Gov. Innov. Harvard Kennedy Sch., no. August 1 (2017), 12

    2017

  53. [61]

    Kellie Morrissey and Jurek Kirakowski. 2013. ‘Realness’ in chatbots: establishing quantifiable criteria. InHuman-Computer Interaction. Interaction Modalities and Techniques: 15th International Conference, HCI International 2013, Las Vegas, NV, USA, July 21-26, 2013, Proceeding...

    2013

  54. [62]

    Michael J Muller and Sarah Kuhn. 1993. Participatory design.Commun. ACM 36, 6 (1993), 24–28

    1993

  55. [63]

    Taewoo Nam and Theresa A. Pardo. 2013. Identifying Success Factors and Challenges of 311-Driven Service Integration: A Comparative Case Study of NYC311 and Philly311. In2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE, 1884–1893

    2013

  56. [64]

    Mario Neururer, Stephan Schlögl, Luisa Brinkschulte, and Aleksander Groth

  57. [65]

    Genie NL Stowers. 2022. Back to Basics: City Services and 311 Service Requests. State and Local Government Review54, 1 (2022), 13–31

    2022

  58. [66]

    Daniel Tumminelli O’Brien, Eric Gordon, and Jessica Baldwin. 2014. Caring about the community, counteracting disorder: 311 reports of public issues as expressions of territoriality.Journal of Environmental Psychology40 (2014), 320–330

    2014

  59. [67]

    Atlanta Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce. 2003. Atlanta MSA Growth Statistics. 2006 MSA Growth Stats Report. https://web.archive.org/web/ 20070927062537/http://www.metroatlantachamber.com/macoc/business/img/ MSAGrowthStatsReport2006.pdf

    2003

  60. [68]

    Mayor’s Office of Communications. 2023. Atlanta Enhances Customer Services with New Atlanta 311 Chatbot. Press Releases. https://www.atlantaga.gov/ Home/Components/News/News/14573/672?npage=2

    2023

  61. [69]

    City of Los Angeles Controller. 2021. The 411 on 311: Calling for a Customer- First Approach. https://lacontroller.org/audits-and-reports/311-report/ Audit Report

    2021

  62. [70]

    Patrick Olivier and Peter Wright. 2015. Digital civics: taking a local turn. interactions22, 4 (2015), 61–63

    2015

  63. [71]

    2020.Public service logic: Creating value for public service users, citizens, and society through public service delivery

    Stephen Osborne. 2020.Public service logic: Creating value for public service users, citizens, and society through public service delivery. Routledge

    2020

  64. [72]

    Daniel Tumminelli O’Brien. 2012. Managing the urban commons: The relative influence of individual and social incentives on the treatment of public space. Human Nature23 (2012), 467–489

    2012

  65. [73]

    Daniel Tumminelli O’Brien, Dietmar Offenhuber, Jessica Baldwin-Philippi, Melissa Sands, and Eric Gordon. 2017. Uncharted territoriality in coproduction: The motivations for 311 reporting.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory27, 2 (2017), 320–335

    2017

  66. [74]

    Burak Pak, Alvin Chua, and Andrew Vande Moere. 2017. FixMyStreet Brussels: socio-demographic inequality in crowdsourced civic participation.Journal of Urban Technology24, 2 (2017), 65–87

    2017

  67. [75]

    Jim Pattison-Gordon. 2021. New Orleans Launches Its AI-Powered, Textable 311 Chatbot.GovTech(2021). https://www.govtech.com/products/new-orleans- launches-its-ai-powered-textable-311-chatbot Accessed 2025-04-20

    2021

  68. [76]

    David Peña, Diane Jones Allen, Randolph T Hester, Jeffrey Hou, L Lawson, and Marcia J McNally. 2017. Design as democracy: Techniques for collective creativity.Island Press: Washington, DC. doi10 (2017), 978–1

    2017

  69. [77]

    Stephen L Percy. 1984. Citizen participation in the coproduction of urban services.Urban Affairs Quarterly19, 4 (1984), 431–446

    1984

  70. [78]

    Manuel Portela and Carlos Granell-Canut. 2017. A new friend in our smart- phone? Observing interactions with chatbots in the search of emotional engage- ment. InProceedings of the XVIII International Conference on Human Computer Interaction. 1–7

    2017

  71. [79]

    Brandon Reynante, Steven P Dow, and Narges Mahyar. 2021. A framework for open civic design: Integrating public participation, crowdsourcing, and design thinking.Digital Government: Research and Practice2, 4 (2021), 1–22

    2021

  72. [80]

    John Robert and Douglas Schmidt. 2024. 10 Benefits and 10 Challenges of Applying Large Language Models to DoD Software Acquisition. Carnegie Improving Public Service Chatbot Design and Civic Impact DIS ’25, July 5–9, 2025, Funchal, Portugal Mellon University, Software Engineer...

    2024 doi

  73. [81]

    Marcel Ruoff, Brad A Myers, and Alexander Maedche. 2023. ONYX: assisting users in teaching natural language interfaces through multi-modal interactive task learning. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16

    2023

  74. [82]

    Antti Salovaara and Antti Oulasvirta. 2004. Six modes of proactive resource management: a user-centric typology for proactive behaviors. InProceedings of the third Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction. 57–60

    2004

  75. [83]

    Alberto Savoldelli, Cristiano Codagnone, and Gianluca Misuraca. 2014. Under- standing the e-government paradox: Learning from literature and practice on barriers to adoption.Government Information Quarterly31 (2014), S63–S71

    2014

  76. [84]

    Richard W Schwester, Tony Carrizales, and Marc Holzer. 2009. An examination of the municipal 311 system.International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior12, 2 (2009), 218–236

    2009

  77. [85]

    Heung-Yeung Shum, Xiao-dong He, and Di Li. 2018. From Eliza to XiaoIce: challenges and opportunities with social chatbots.Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering19 (2018), 10–26

    2018

  78. [86]

    Rachel Silcock. 2001. What is e-government.Parliamentary affairs54, 1 (2001), 88–101

    2001

  79. [87]

    Geovana Ramos Sousa Silva and Edna Dias Canedo. 2024. Towards user-centric guidelines for chatbot conversational design.International Journal of Human– Computer Interaction40, 2 (2024), 98–120

    2024

  80. [88]

    Susan Leigh Star and James R Griesemer. 1989. Institutional ecology,translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39.Social studies of science19, 3 (1989), 387–420

    1989

  81. [89]

    Theodore Stickley. 2006. Should service user involvement be consigned to history? A critical realist perspective.Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing13, 5 (2006), 570–577

    2006

  82. [90]

    Kyoko Sugisaki and Andreas Bleiker. 2020. Usability guidelines and evaluation criteria for conversational user interfaces: a heuristic and linguistic approach. InProceedings of Mensch und Computer 2020. 309–319

    2020

  83. [91]

    David Tennenhouse. 2000. Proactive computing.Commun. ACM43, 5 (2000), 43–50

    2000

  84. [92]

    Reconciling Public Entrepreneurship and Democracy

    Larry D Terry. 1993. Why We Should Abandon the Misconceived Quest to Reconcile Public Entrepreneurship with Democracy: A Response to Bellone and Goerl’s" Reconciling Public Entrepreneurship and Democracy".Public Administration Review53, 4 (1993), 393–395

    1993

  85. [93]

    Kaisa Väänänen, Aleksi Hiltunen, Jari Varsaluoma, and Iikka Pietilä. 2020. CivicBots–Chatbots for supporting youth in societal participation. InChat- bot Research and Design: Third International Workshop, CONVERSATIONS 2019, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, November 19–20, 2019, Re...

    2020

  86. [94]

    Karthik Valmeekam, Matthew Marquez, Sarath Sreedharan, and Subbarao Kamb- hampati. 2024. On the planning abilities of large language models-a critical investigation.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36 (2024)

    2024

  87. [95]

    Mónica Siu do Rosário Valverde et al. 2019. Chatbot in the online provision of government services. (2019)

    2019

  88. [96]

    Colin Van Noordt and Gianluca Misuraca. 2019. New wine in old bottles: Chatbots in government: Exploring the transformative impact of chatbots in public service delivery. InElectronic Participation: 11th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, ePart 2019, San Benedetto Del Tront...

    2019

  89. [97]

    Maarten Van Someren, Yvonne F Barnard, and J Sandberg. 1994. The think aloud method: a practical approach to modelling cognitive.London: AcademicPress11, 6 (1994)

    1994

  90. [98]

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need.Advances in neural information processing systems30 (2017)

    2017

  91. [99]

    Giovanna Nunes Vilaza, Can Liu, Ben Bengler, Licia Capra, and Yvonne Rogers

  92. [100]

    Cunxiang Wang, Sirui Cheng, Zhikun Xu, Bowen Ding, Yidong Wang, and Yue Zhang. 2023. Evaluating open question answering evaluation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12421(2023)

    2023 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Irene Weber. 2024. Large Language Models as Software Components: A Taxon- omy for LLM-Integrated Applications.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10300(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reason- ing in large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems 35 (2022), 24824–24837

    2022

  95. [103]

    Gordon P Whitaker. 1980. Coproduction: Citizen participation in service delivery. Public administration review(1980), 240–246

    1980

  96. [104]

    InProceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction

    Here, this and next: evaluating public engagement with multiple, dis- tributed and interlinked devices. InProceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. 524–536

  97. [105]

    Jingfeng Yang, Hongye Jin, Ruixiang Tang, Xiaotian Han, Qizhang Feng, Haom- ing Jiang, Shaochen Zhong, Bing Yin, and Xia Hu. 2024. Harnessing the power of llms in practice: A survey on chatgpt and beyond.ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data18, 6 (2024), 1–32

    2024

  98. [106]

    Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan

    Shunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran, Thomas L. Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2023. Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models. arXiv:2305.10601 [cs.CL]

    2023 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Yue Zhang, Yafu Li, Leyang Cui, Deng Cai, Lemao Liu, Tingchen Fu, Xinting Huang, Enbo Zhao, Yu Zhang, Yulong Chen, et al . 2023. Siren’s song in the AI ocean: a survey on hallucination in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.01219(2023)

    2023 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Qingxiao Zheng, Yiliu Tang, Yiren Liu, Weizi Liu, and Yun Huang. 2022. UX research on conversational human-AI interaction: A literature review of the ACM digital library. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–24

    2022

  101. [109]

    Ziwei Xu, Sanjay Jain, and Mohan Kankanhalli. 2024. Hallucination is inevitable: An innate limitation of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.11817 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  102. [114]

    Caleb Ziems, William Held, Omar Shaikh, Jiaao Chen, Zhehao Zhang, and Diyi Yang. 2024. Can large language models transform computational social science? Computational Linguistics50, 1 (2024), 237–291

    2024

  103. [2016]

    InProceedings of the 2016 acm conference on designing interactive systems

    What can you do? Studying social-agent orientation and agent proac- tive interactions with an agent for employees. InProceedings of the 2016 acm conference on designing interactive systems. 264–275

    2016

  104. [2018]

    Perceptions on authenticity in chat bots.Multimodal Technologies and Interaction2, 3 (2018), 60

    2018

  105. [2020]

    InProceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology

    Multi-modal repairs of conversational breakdowns in task-oriented dialogs. InProceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1094–1107

  106. [2023]

    Chatbot Design Challenges and the Effect on User Behavior.Trends, Applications, and Challenges of Chatbot Technology(2023), 24–35

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.