A Semantic Recommender Engine for Idea Generation Improvement
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
In order to develop the ability to be competitive in considering rapidly growing global market and enormously changing in technology, organizations are looking for up-to-date procedures to respond to all these transformations. Being smart and innovative is actually the most significant pillars of successful organization strategies. In other words, organizations need to encourage learning, manage knowledge and create innovative ideas. A major issue of creative ideation is improving the quality of the ideas generated. In this paper, we propose a semantic recommender engine for idea generation in order to assist organizations to improve their ways of generating new ideas. Through this novel system, innovation actors will be able to consider new perspectives, make new connections, think differently and thus produce new promising ideas. We initially introduce the concept behind a smart organization, explore the idea generation in such organizations and examine the role of recommender systems for managing this stage and identifying breakthrough ideas. Next, we present the context of design, the conceptual architecture of the suggested system and finally expand the workflow of semantic similarity matching of ideas with a focus on the key components of the semantic recommendation engine.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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