MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Time-Window Approach to Recommending Emerging and On-the-rise Items

2022· article· en· W4316021211 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tubagus Mohammad Akhriza, Indah Dwi Mumpuni

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 Seventh International Conference on Informatics and Computing (ICIC) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWindow (computing)Database transactionComputer scienceAssociation rule learningRecommender systemQuarter (Canadian coin)Transaction dataData miningInformation retrievalDatabaseWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recommendation system (RS) filters large sales transaction data, to promote item Y as an alternative or pair to item X that the application user is looking for. Items that are no longer in season usually decrease in transactions, even to zero. Constantly recommending these items is irrelevant, while other items that are more relevant and profitable are not recommended, such as the emerging and on-the-rise items. The proposed solution to this problem is the time window approach, which is a block of data of a certain size and recorded at a certain time stamp. Item combinations (itemsets) are mined from each window with an association rule approach, and changes in the number of transactions containing these items are evaluated from window to window. From the number of transactions that contain the itemsets, the system distinguishes status items into four types: risky, normal, emerging, and on-the-rise. Items that are currently suffering from zero sales risk the same fate in the next window, so they are called risky items. The system will notify admins to review this item, and look for other emerging or on-the-rise items to promote along with item X. Experiments were carried out on two datasets, and it was found that 42.7% and 59.4% items from each dataset are risky.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2022 Seventh International Conference on Informatics and Computing (ICIC)Same topicData Mining Algorithms and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207