MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W114734663 · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v3i1.13964

Adaptive Weblog Post Filtering Based on User Browsing History

2009· article· en· W114734663 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Farahmand Nejad, Sadegh Kharazmi, Shahabedin Bayati, Hassan Abolhassani, Koosha Golmohammadi

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb Data Mining and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopularityWorld Wide WebComputer scienceOrder (exchange)RevenuePopulationMultimediaBusinessPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Weblogs are one of important Web-based services that establish the foundations of the Web 2.0. These days many companies propose free Weblog hosting and population services, because they realize that Weblogs are evolving to be a more topic based systems, and so they could be good places to gain more revenue. One of effective factors for gaining more revenue is blog popularity. Weblogs have posts that arranged chronologically with most recent first. Some of Weblog has many posts that cause difficulty in finding specific posts by each viewer. On the other hand unsuitable posts order can redouble this problem. This difficulty occasions reduction of Weblog popularity. As our researches on Farsi weblogs shown many viewers close some Weblog windows before completely loaded in their own Web browsers. Based on our research an important reason is the existence of vast amount of Weblog posts. Viewer interests can be beneficial if they utilize for adaptive filtering Weblogs and showing their contents. This paper represents an approach for filtering and reordering Weblog posts based on user’s browsing history Experimental results show that our filtering approach can improve Weblog popularity and can increases Weblog viewers.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social MediaSame topicWeb Data Mining and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207