Developing smart city services using intent‐aware recommendation systems: A survey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Smart cities could be defined as urban areas that use Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to solve city problems in efficient and sustainable ways. Intent‐aware Recommender Systems (IARS) within ICT play a crucial role in filtering useless information according to user demands and assist in decision‐making in various smart city platforms. In smart cities, the user traces on IoT, RFIDs, mobiles, and smart sensors capture actual user intent of performing an activity and enhance user satisfaction by proposing optimal services. This paper presents a detailed literature survey of the field of IARS and how it can be used for developing smart city services. First, we present the evolution of IARS with the development of computing technology. Then, we present case studies, synergies, advances, and a reference implementation architecture of IARS for smart cities. We discuss requirements for developing smart city services using IARS. Furthermore, we devise a comprehensive taxonomy of applications and techniques of IARS using different performance parameters. Finally, we elaborate on current issues, challenges, and future research directions in IARS; these directions we believe will pave the way for autonomous service provisioning in smart cities.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it