News Recommender System Considering Temporal Dynamics and News Taxonomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past, news recommender systems have been built to recommend list of news items similar to those that a user has accessed before (content-based); or similar to those that have been read by similar users (collaborative filtering). However, the highly volatile nature of the news content and the dynamic and evolving user preferences are either ignored or not taken into full consideration in these systems. In a news recommender system, it is very likely that a user's short-term interest or preference may have a sudden change due to an emerging social or personal event or breaking news while their long-term interests may change gradually or remain. For these long-term interests of the readers, it is often more appropriate to associate them with news categories than with individual news items. In this paper, we propose a biased matrix factorization model with consideration of both temporal dynamics of user preferences and news taxonomy to build a news recommender system. By conducting an extensive experiment on a collection of news data, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed model against traditional matrix factorization models as well as other neural recommender baselines. The findings from our experiments show that news category is an important factor when readers choose news articles to read, and temporal factors with consideration of different temporal resolution also play a role in this process.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".