Tag sources for recommendation in collaborative tagging systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Collaborative tagging systems are social data repositories, in which users manage resources using descriptive keywords (tags). An important element of collaborative tagging systems is the tag recommender, which proposes a set of tags to each newly posted resource. In this paper we discuss the potential role of three tag sources: resource content as well as resource and user profiles in the tag recommendation system. Our system compiles a set of resource specific tags, which includes tags related to the title and tags previously used to describe the same resource (resource profile). These tags are checked against user profile tags – a rich, but imprecise source of information about user interests. The result is a set of tags related both to the resource and user. Depending on the character of processed posts this set can be an extension of the common tag recommendation sources, namely resource title and resource profile. The system was submitted to ECML PKDD Discovery Challenge 2009 for “content-based ” and “graph-based ” recommendation tasks, in which it took the first and third place respectively. 1
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 | 0.013 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
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".