A Location-Query-Browse Graph for Contextual 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
Traditionally, recommender systems modelled the physical and cyber contextual influence on people's moving, querying, and browsing behaviors in isolation. Yet, searching, querying, and moving behaviors are intricately linked, especially indoors. Here, we introduce a tripartite location-query-browse graph (LQB) for nuanced contextual recommendations. The LQB graph consists of three kinds of nodes: locations, queries, and Web domains. Directed connections only between heterogeneous nodes represent the contextual influences, while connections of homogeneous nodes are inferred from the contextual influences of the other nodes. This tripartite LQB graph is more reliable than any monopartite or bipartite graph in contextual location, query, and Web content recommendations. We validate this LQB graph in an indoor retail scenario with extensive dataset of three logs collected from over 120,000 anonymized, opt-in users over a 1-year period in a large inner-city mall in Sydney, Australia. We characterize the contextual influences that correspond to the arcs in the LQB graph, and evaluate the usefulness of the LQB graph for location, query, and Web content recommendations. The experimental results show that the LQB graph successfully captures the contextual influence and significantly outperforms the state of the art in these applications.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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