MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326116455 · doi:10.5121/csit.2015.51308

Hashtag Recommendation System in a P2P Social Networking Application

2015· article· en· W2326116455 on OpenAlexafffund
Keerthi Nelaturu, Ying Qiao, Iluju Kiringa, Tet-Hin Yeap

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsLatent Dirichlet allocationComputer scienceTopic modelInformation retrievalRecommender systemFocus (optics)Social mediaWorld Wide WebData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper focus is on developing a hashtag recommendation system for an online social network application with a Peer-to-Peer infrastructure motivated by BestPeer++ architecture and BATON overlay structure.A user may invoke a recommendation procedure while writing the content.After being invoked, the recommendation procedure returns a list of candidate hashtags, and the user may select one hashtag from the list and embed it into the content.The proposed approach uses Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) topic model to derive the latent or hidden topics of different content.LDA topic model is a well-developed data mining algorithm and generally effective in analysing text documents with different lengths.The topic model is used to identify the candidate hashtags that are associated with the texts in the published content through their association with the derived hidden topics.The experiments for evaluating the recommendation approach were fed with the tweets published in Twitter.Hit-rate of recommendation is considered as an evaluation metricfor our experiments.Hit-rate is the percentage of the selected or relevant hashtags contained in candidate hashtags.Our experiment results show that the hit-rate above 50% is observed when we use a method of recommendation approach independently.Also, for the case that both similar user and user preferences are considered at the same time, the hit-rate improved to 87% and 92% for top-5 and top-10 candidate recommendations respectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRecommender Systems and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207