Item recommendation using user feedback data and item profile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Matrix factorization (MS) is a collaborative filtering (CF) based approach, which is widely used for recommendation systems (RS). In this research work, we deal with the content recommendation problem for users in a content management system (CMS) based on users' feedback data. The CMS is applied for publishing and pushing curated content to the employees of a company or an organization. Here, we have used the user's feedback data and content data to solve the content recommendation problem. We prepare individual user profiles and then generate recommendation results based on different categories, including Direct Interaction, Social Share, and Reading Statistics, of user's feedback data. Subsequently, we analyze the effect of the different categories on the recommendation results. The results have shown that different categories of feedback data have different impacts on recommendation accuracy. The best performance achieves if we include all types of data for the recommendation task. We also incorporate content similarity as a regularization term into an MF model for designing a hybrid model. Experimental results have shown that the proposed hybrid model demonstrates better performance compared with the traditional MF-based models.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".