Bibliographic record
Abstract
The focus of point-of-interest recommendation techniques is to suggest a venue to a given user that would match the users’ interests and is likely to be adopted by the user. Given the multitude of the available venues and the sparsity of user check-ins, the problem of recommending venues has shown to be a difficult task. Existing literature has already explored various types of features such as geographical distribution, social structure and temporal behavioral patterns to make a recommendation. In this thesis, we show how a comprehensive set of user and venue related information can be methodically incorporated into a heterogeneous graph representation based on which the problem of venue recommendation can be efficiently formulated as an instance of the heterogeneous link prediction problem on the graph and we propose a new set of features derived based on the neural embeddings of venues and users. We additionally show how the neural embeddings for users and venues can be jointly learnt based on the prior check-in sequence of users and then be used to define a set of new features. We have also used a new proposed heterogeneous graph similarity search framework to find similarity between users and venues using our graph. These features are integrated into a feature-based matrix factorization model. Our experiments show that the features defined over the user and venue embeddings are effective for venue recommendation and outperform existing state of the art methods.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".