Spatial topic modeling in online social media for location recommendation
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
Mobile networks enable users to post on social media services (e.g., Twitter) from anywhere. The activities of mobile users involve three major entities: user, post, and location. The interaction of these entities is the key to answer questions such as who will post a message where and on what topic? In this paper, we address the problem of profiling mobile users by modeling their activities, i.e., we explore topic modeling considering the spatial and textual aspects of user posts, and predict future user locations. We propose the first ST (Spatial Topic) model to capture the correlation between users' movements and between user interests and the function of locations. We employ the sparse coding technique which greatly speeds up the learning process. We perform experiments on two real life data sets from Twitter and Yelp. Through comprehensive experiments, we demonstrate that our proposed model consistently improves the average [email protected],5,10,15,20 for location recommendation by at least 50% (Twitter) and 300% (Yelp) against existing state-of-the-art recommendation algorithms and geographical topic models.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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