Improving Rating and Relevance with Point-of-Interest Recommender System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recommendation of points of interest (POIs) is essential in location-based social networks. It makes it easier for users and locations to share information. Recently, researchers tend to recommend POIs by treating them as large-scale retrieval systems that require a large amount of training data representing query-item relevance. However, gathering user feedback in retrieval systems is an expensive task. Existing POI recommender systems make recommendations based on user and item (location) interactions solely. However, there are numerous sources of feedback to consider. For example, when the user visits a POI, what is the POI is about and such. Integrating all these different types of feedback is essential when developing a POI recommender. In this paper, we propose using user and item information and auxiliary information to improve the recommendation modelling in a retrieval system. We develop a deep neural network architecture to model query-item relevance in the presence of both collaborative and content information. We also improve the quality of the learned representations of queries and items by including the contextual information from the user feedback data. The application of these learned representations to a large-scale dataset resulted in significant improvements.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".