Tangible Cultural Analytics: The Adoption of Recommender Systems Within Cultural Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prospect of implementing recommender systems within the context of cultural research has not been explored nearly as much compared to implementation in e-commerce websites and applications. Recommender systems allow for users to be shown new objects either based upon object similarity or based upon what the algorithm thinks the user will like – which can be derived from user feedback and comparing the user to other similar users. This paper discusses how a recommender system could benefit an augmented reality application that enables 3D viewing of artifacts – as part of the Tangible Cultural Analytics (TCA) project at Ryerson University’s Synaesthetic Lab. This paper outlines four recommender systems: 1) content-based filtering, 2) collaborative filtering, 3) cluster models 4) search based models, and 5) hybrid models; discussing the pros and cons to each. Ultimately, a content-based model without the user profile aspect was chosen for this stage in the prototype. This model showed us just how much potential these recommender systems have when helping cultural researchers uncover new relationships and pieces of history through the study and comparison of artifacts.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".