A Theory-Driven Design Framework for Social Recommender Systems
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 recommender systems utilize data regarding users’ social relationships in filtering relevant information to users. To date, results show that incorporating social relationship data – beyond consumption profile similarity – is beneficial only in a very limited set of cases. The main conjecture of this study is that the inconclusive results are, at least to some extent, due to an under-specification of the nature of the social relations. To date, there exist no clear guidelines for using behavioral theory to guide systems design. Our primary objective is to propose a methodology for theory-driven design. We enhance Walls et al.’s (1992) IS Design Theory by introducing the notion of “applied behavioral theory,” as a means of better linking theory and system design. Our second objective is to apply our theory-driven design methodology to social recommender systems, with the aim of improving prediction accuracy. A behavioral study found that some social relationships (e.g., competence, benevolence) are most likely to affect a recipient’s advice-taking decision. We designed, developed, and tested a recommender system based on these principles, and found that the same types of relationships yield the best recommendation accuracy. This striking correspondence highlights the importance of behavioral theory in guiding system design. We discuss implications for design science and for research on recommender systems.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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