MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389762525 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3753341/v1

Short Video Recommendation through Multimodal Feature Fusion with Attention Mechanism

2023· preprint· en· W4389762525 on OpenAlexaff
Jaxon Langlois, Nikolai St-Pierre, Maeve Hollis

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMetadataFeature (linguistics)Recommender systemRepresentation (politics)Information overloadModalInformation retrievalMultimediaArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<title>Abstract</title> To address the issue of information overload, recommendation systems have emerged. These systems analyze user attributes and historical behavior to gain profound insights into user needs, thereby filtering and selecting content that aligns with those needs. Challenges in Applying Traditional Recommendation Methods to Video Recommendation: Addressing issues such as cold start problems, sparsity, and over-specialization when traditional recommendation methods are applied to video recommendation. Different Recommendation Modes: This includes sorting-based video recommendations, recommendations based on video summaries, and multi-modal or cross-modal recommendations. This paper primarily focuses on attention-based feature representation models at the feature level, learning features from different perspectives. Simultaneously, addressing the specific scenario of short video recommendations, where current approaches often rely on user preferences, user behavior, and other metadata for recommendations, neglecting the content of the short videos themselves, leading to a severe cold start problem and resulting in the neglect of most short videos. Hence, building upon efficient feature representation, this paper considers short video content and social relationships to explore user preferences from multimodal video content and social connections, enhancing the model's predictive accuracy.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.284 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicRecommender Systems and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207