MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281392049 · doi:10.3390/electronics11101660

A Serendipity-Oriented Personalized Trip Recommendation Model

2022· article· en· W4281392049 on OpenAlexaff
Rizwan Abbas, Ghassan Muslim Hassan, Muna Al‐Razgan, Mingwei Zhang, Gehad Abdullah Amran, Ali A. AL-Bakhrani, Taha Alfakih, Hussein AL-SANABANİ, Sk. Md. Mizanur Rahman

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsCentennial College
FundersKing Saud University
KeywordsSerendipityPoint of interestComputer scienceRecommender systemSimilarity (geometry)Sequence (biology)Information retrievalPlan (archaeology)World Wide WebData scienceArtificial intelligenceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Personalized trip recommendation attempts to recommend a sequence of Points of Interest (POIs) to a user. Compared with a single POI recommendation, the POIs sequence recommendation is challenging. There are only a couple of studies focusing on POIs sequence recommendations. It is a challenge to generate a reliable sequence of POIs. The two consecutive POIs should not be similar or from the same category. In developing the sequence of POIs, it is necessary to consider the categories of consecutive POIs. The user with no recorded history is also a challenge to address in trip recommendations. Another problem is that recommending the exact and accurate location makes the users bored. Looking at the same kind of POIs, again and again, is sometimes irritating and tedious. To address these issues in recommendation lies in searching for the sequential, relevant, novel, and unexpected (with high satisfaction) Points of Interest (POIs) to plan a personalized trip. To generate sequential POIs, we will consider POI similarity and category differences among consecutive POIs. We will use serendipity in our trip recommendation. To deal with the challenges of discovering and evaluating user satisfaction, we proposed a Serendipity-Oriented Personalized Trip Recommendation (SOTR). A compelling recommendation algorithm should not just prescribe what we are probably going to appreciate but additionally recommend random yet objective elements to assist with keeping an open window to different worlds and discoveries. We evaluated our algorithm using information acquired from a real-life dataset and user travel histories extracted from a Foursquare dataset. It has been observationally confirmed that serendipity impacts and increases user satisfaction and social goals. Based on that, SOTR recommends a trip with high user satisfaction to maximize user experience. We show that our algorithm outperforms various recommendation methods by satisfying user interests in the trip.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronicsSame topicRecommender Systems and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207