Bibliographic record
Abstract
Replicating the results of the recommender system's evaluation is one of the main concerns in the area. This paper discusses this issue from different angles: 1) It investigates the uniformity of recommenders' evaluation designs presented in practice and their consistency with the theoretical side. 2) It highlights some of the issues and challenges that face recommenders' evaluators. 3) It provides stepwise guidelines for offline evaluation settings. A quantitative study of articles published in the last decade is studied. The search process is a manual search for a conference and a random search of journals. The results show a lack of uniformity and consistency in presenting the evaluation methods. Most of the articles miss at least one evaluation aspect (i.e., some aspects are not presented in the article). These discrepancies and the wide variety of evaluation settings lead to non-replicable experiments. To mitigate this issue, the paper proposes the recommender evaluation guidelines (REval), which presents a roadmap for recommender systems' evaluators.
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 | 0.087 | 0.231 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".