MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391790530 · doi:10.2991/978-94-6463-370-2_61

Content-based Filtering for Improving Movie Recommender System

2024· book-chapter· en· W4391790530 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in intelligent systems research/Advances in Intelligent Systems Research · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTechnology and Data Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecommender systemCollaborative filteringComputer scienceInformation retrievalMultimedia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People constantly receive personalized information recommendations, and movie recommendation is one of the most recognized applications.Effective algorithms support the analysis of users' behavior, which helps to improve the rating system.Content-based filtering (CBF) is a major technique in recommender systems that operates on the premise of leveraging the relationship between user preferences and item characteristics to predict items.This paper provides a detailed look about the challenges that this method presents, emphasizing concerns with new users, inherent method limitations, issues with feature sparsity, the challenge of feature extraction, and the potential risk of over-specialization in suggestions.In synthesizing these challenges and innovations, this study highlights the potential of content-based filtering, marking its key role in the ongoing pursuit of personalized content delivery, while suggesting methods for improvement.

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 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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0130.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0100.003
Research integrity0.0020.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.232 · 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