Contexts in a paper recommendation system with collaborative filtering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Making personalized paper recommendations to users in an educational domain is not a trivial task of simply matching users’ interests with a paper topic. Therefore, we proposed a context-aware multidimensional paper recommendation system that considers additional user and paper features. Earlier experiments on experienced graduate students demonstrated the significance of this approach using modified collaborative filtering techniques. However, two key issues remain: (1) How would the modified filtering perform when target users are inexperienced undergraduate students who have a different pedagogical background and contextual information-seeking goals, such as task- and course-related goals, from those of graduate students?; (2) Should we combine graduates and undergraduates in the same pool, or should we separate them? We conducted two studies aimed at addressing these issues and they showed that (1) the system can be effectively used for inexperienced learners; (2) recommendations are less effective for different learning groups (with different pedagogical features and learning goals) than they are for the same learning groups. Based on the results obtained from these studies, we suggest several context-aware filtering techniques for different learning scenarios.<br /><br />
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".