Following Good Examples - Health Goal-Oriented Food Recommendation based on Behavior Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Typical recommender systems try to mimic the past behaviors of users to make future recommendations. For example, in food recommendations, they tend to recommend the foods the user prefers. While the recommended foods may be easily accepted by the user, it cannot improve the user’s dietary habits for a specific goal such as weight control. In this paper, we build a food recommendation system that can be used on the web or in a mobile app to help users meet their goals on body weight, while also taking into account their health information (BMI) and the nutrition information of foods (calories). Instead of applying dietary guidelines as constraints, we build recommendation models from the successful behaviors of comparable users: the weight loss model is trained using the historical food consumption data of similar users who successfully lost weight. By combining such a goal-oriented recommendation model with a general model, the recommendations can be smoothly tuned toward the goal without disruptive food changes. We tested the approach on real data collected from a popular weight management app. It is shown that our recommendation approach can better predict the foods for test periods where the user truly meets the goal, than the typical existing approaches.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
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".