A Generic Top-N Recommendation Framework For Trading-off Accuracy,\n Novelty, and Coverage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Standard collaborative filtering approaches for top-N recommendation are\nbiased toward popular items. As a result, they recommend items that users are\nlikely aware of and under-represent long-tail items. This is inadequate, both\nfor consumers who prefer novel items and because concentrating on popular items\npoorly covers the item space, whereas high item space coverage increases\nproviders' revenue.\n We present an approach that relies on historical rating data to learn user\nlong-tail novelty preferences. We integrate these preferences into a generic\nre-ranking framework that customizes balance between accuracy and coverage. We\nempirically validate that our proposedframework increases the novelty of\nrecommendations. Furthermore, by promoting long-tail items to the right group\nof users, we significantly increase the system's coverage while scalably\nmaintaining accuracy. Our framework also enables personalization of existing\nnon-personalized algorithms, making them competitive with existing personalized\nalgorithms in key performance metrics, including accuracy and coverage.\n
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".