MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407311311 · doi:10.1111/coin.70024

Personalized Recommendation Method Based on Rating Matrix and Review Text

2025· article· en· W4407311311 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

VenueComputational Intelligence · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceNatural language processingInformation retrievalArtificial intelligenceSpeech recognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT In recent years, the algorithm based on review text has been widely used in recommendation systems, which can help mitigate the effect of sparsity in rating data within recommender algorithms. Existing methods typically employ a uniform model for capturing user and item features, but they are limited to the shallow feature level, and the user's personalized preferences and deep features of the item have not been fully explored, which may affect the relationship between the two representations learned by the model. The deeper relationship between them will affect the prediction results. Consequently, we propose a personalized recommendation method based on the rating matrix and review text denoted PRM‐RR, which is used to deeply mine user preferences and item characteristics. In the process of processing the comment text, we employ ALBERT to obtain vector representations for the words present in the review text firstly. Subsequently, taking into account that significant words and reviews bear relevance not solely to the review text but also to the user's individualized preferences, the proposed personalized attention module synergizes the user's personalized preference information with the review text vector, thereby engendering an enriched review‐based user representation. The fusion of the user's review representation and rating representation is accomplished through the feature fusion module using cross‐modal attention, yielding the final user representation. Lastly, we employ a factorization machine to predict the user's rating for the item, thereby facilitating the recommendation process. Experimental results on three benchmark datasets show that our method outperforms the baseline algorithm in all cases, demonstrating that our method effectively improves the performance of recommendations. The code is available at https://github.com/ZehuaChenLab/PRM‐RR .

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.354 · 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