Looking for Like-Minded Individuals in Social Networks Using Tagging and E Fuzzy Sets
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The web is perceived as a new social platform. Very often, the users look at the web as a place where they can find an individual or group of people with the same or similar interests, or even find new friends. Such situation is reflected in one of the aspects of the web 2.0 called tagging. Tagging is a process of labeling (annotating) digital items-resources-by users. The labels-tags-assigned to those resources reflect users' ways of seeing, categorizing, and perceiving particular items. In general, a single user can label a number of items with a number of different tags. The results of this activity-labeled items and used tags-can be perceived as information characterizing the user. This paper describes an approach for constructing a user signature representing her interests and opinions based on used items and tags. The signature is determined as a fuzzy relation built on two fuzzy sets proposed here: a fuzzy set representing resource attractiveness, and a fuzzy set representing tag popularity. Furthermore, users' signatures are used to determine similarity between users, and potentially give users a method to find new web friends with similar interests and opinions. The paper also describes a process of building different signatures representing a group of users. Signatures of users that are members of the group are aggregated using OWA operator and different linguistic quantifiers to describe the group in a number of ways. A real-world case study illustrating the process of finding similar users and/or groups of users is included.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it