Pointer-Based Item-to-Item Collaborative Filtering Recommendation System Using a Machine Learning Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The creation of digital marketing has enabled companies to adopt personalized item recommendations for their customers. This process keeps them ahead of the competition. One of the techniques used in item recommendation is known as item-based recommendation system or item–item collaborative filtering. Presently, item recommendation is based completely on ratings like 1–5, which is not included in the comment section. In this context, users or customers express their feelings and thoughts about products or services. This paper proposes a machine learning model system where 0, 2, 4 are used to rate products. 0 is negative, 2 is neutral, 4 is positive. This will be in addition to the existing review system that takes care of the users' reviews and comments, without disrupting it. We have implemented this model by using Keras, Pandas and Sci-kit Learning libraries to run the internal work. The proposed approach improved prediction with 79% accuracy for Yelp datasets of businesses across 11 metropolitan areas in four countries, along with a mean absolute error (MAE) of 21%, precision at 79%, recall at 80% and F1-Score at 79%. Our model shows scalability advantage and how organizations can revolutionize their recommender systems to attract possible customers and increase patronage. Also, the proposed similarity algorithm was compared to conventional algorithms to estimate its performance and accuracy in terms of its root mean square error (RMSE), precision and recall. Results of this experiment indicate that the similarity recommendation algorithm performs better than the conventional algorithm and enhances recommendation 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".