The role of user profiles for news filtering
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
Most on-line news sources are electronic versions of “ink-on-paper” newspapers. These are versions that have been filtered, from the mass of news produced each day, by an editorial board with a given community profile in mind. As readers, we choose the filter rather than choose the stories. New technology, however, provides the potential for personalized versions to be filtered automatically from this mass of news on the basis of user profiles. People read the news for many reasons: to find out “what's going on,” to be knowledgeable members of a community, and because the activity itself is pleasurable. Given this, we ask the question, “How much filtering is acceptable to readers?” In this study, an evaluation of user preference for personal editions versus community editions of on-line news was performed. A personalized edition of a local newspaper was created for each subject based on an elliptical model that combined the user profile and community profile as represented by the full edition of the local newspaper. The amount of emphasis given the user profile and the community profile was varied to test the subjects' reactions to different amounts of personalized filtering. The task was simply, “read the news,” rather than any subject specific information retrieval task. The results indicate that users prefer the coarse-grained community filters to fine-grained personalized filters.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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