Profiling vs. Time vs. Content: What does Matter for Top-k Publication Recommendation based on Twitter Profiles? - An Extended Technical Report
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
So far it is unclear how different factors of a scientific publication recommender system based on users' tweets have an influence on the recommendation performance. We examine three different factors, namely profiling method, temporal decay, and richness of content. Regarding profiling, we compare CF-IDF that replaces terms in TF-IDF by semantic concepts, HCF-IDF as novel hierarchical variant of CF-IDF, and topic modeling. As temporal decay functions, we apply sliding window and exponential decay. In terms of the richness of content, we compare recommendations using both full-texts and titles of publications and using only titles. Overall, the three factors make twelve recommendation strategies. We have conducted an online experiment with 123 participants and compared the strategies in a within-group design. The best recommendations are achieved by the strategy combining CF-IDF, sliding window, and with full-texts. However, the strategies using the novel HCF-IDF profiling method achieve similar results with just using the titles of the publications. Therefore, HCF-IDF can make recommendations when only short and sparse data is available.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 22 Mar 2016.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1.
1 paper.
- 2023Beyond original Research Articles Categorization via NLPcited by 0
- 2023Beyond original Research Articles Categorization via NLP13 Sep 2023