Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collaborative filtering is the most popular approach to build recommender systems and has been successfully employed in many applications. However, it cannot make recommendations for so-called cold start users that have rated only a very small number of items. In addition, these methods do not know how confident they are in their recommendations. Trust-based recommendation methods assume the additional knowledge of a trust network among users and can better deal with cold start users, since users only need to be simply connected to the trust network. On the other hand, the sparsity of the user item ratings forces the trust-based approach to consider ratings of indirect neighbors that are only weakly trusted, which may decrease its precision. In order to find a good trade-off, we propose a random walk model combining the trust-based and the collaborative filtering approach for recommendation. The random walk model allows us to define and to measure the confidence of a recommendation. We performed an evaluation on the Epinions dataset and compared our model with existing trust-based and collaborative filtering methods.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.021 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".