Keen2Act: Activity Recommendation in Online Social Collaborative Platforms
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
Social collaborative platforms such as GitHub and Stack Overflow have been increasingly used to improve work productivity via collaborative efforts. To improve user experiences in these platforms, it is desirable to have a recommender system that can suggest not only items (e.g., a GitHub repository) to a user, but also activities to be performed on the suggested items (e.g., forking a repository). To this end, we propose a new approach dubbed Keen2Act, which decomposes the recommendation problem into two stages: the Keen and Act steps. The Keen step identifies, for a given user, a (sub)set of items in which he/she is likely to be interested. The Act step then recommends to the user which activities to perform on the identified set of items. This decomposition provides a practical approach to tackling complex activity recommendation tasks while producing higher recommendation quality. We evaluate our proposed approach using two real-world datasets and obtain promising results whereby Keen2Act outperforms several baseline models.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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