MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967611518 · doi:10.1145/3340496.3342760

A recommendation system for emergency mobile applications using context attributes: REMAC

2019· article· en· W2967611518 on OpenAlexaff
Alireza Ahmadi, Debjyoti Mukherjee, Guenther Ruhe

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Recommender systemMobile computingWorld Wide WebTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The extensive use of mobile devices had led to tremendous growth in not only the usage of different apps but also their capability to help people in moments of crisis. There are different emergency mobile apps published in the app markets; these apps can be of enormous assistance to victims as they can provide valuable information and guidance at the opportune moments. However, app store reviews, ratings, and relevant studies have revealed that users are often averse to using these apps or their different features. This draws our attention to the need for recognizing essential features and including them in the emergency apps to increase their usability. Our proposed recommendation system called REMAC combines different machine learning techniques to analyze the context characteristics of different organizations and suggest unique features that can be included in their emergency apps. REMAC is built by analyzing 24 potential context attributes of 1909 universities spread across North America. This research also includes a systematic attribute selection process that enables us to reach a local optimum for the given dataset. This tool carefully dissects the context attributes of each university and suggests top features that should be included in its emergency app. It leverages the data (other apps and features) provided by the app markets to suggest essential features.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsFrench-language works237,207