Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 522

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Personalized recommendation in social tagging systems using hierarchical clustering

Shepitsen, Andriy, Gemmell, Jonathan, Mobasher, Bamshad, Burke, Robin·2008·Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Recommender systems

Abstract

Collaborative tagging applications allow Internet users to annotate resources with personalized tags. The complex network created by many annotations, often called a folksonomy, permits users the freedom to explore tags, resources or even other user's profiles unbound from a rigid predefined conceptual hierarchy. However, the freedom afforded users comes at a cost: an uncontrolled vocabulary can result in tag redundancy and ambiguity hindering navigation. Data mining techniques, such as clustering, provide a means to remedy these problems by identifying trends and reducing noise. Tag clusters can also be used as the basis for effective personalized recommendation assisting users in navigation. We present a personalization algorithm for recommendation in folksonomies which relies on hierarchical tag clusters. Our basic recommendation framework is independent of the clustering method, but we use a context-dependent variant of hierarchical agglomerative clustering which takes into account the user's current navigation context in cluster selection. We present extensive experimental results on two real world dataset. While the personalization algorithm is successful in both cases, our results suggest that folksonomies encompassing only one topic domain, rather than many topics, present an easier target for recommendation, perhaps because they are more focused and often less sparse. Furthermore, context dependent cluster selection, an integral step in our personalization algorithm, demonstrates more utility for recommendation in multi-topic folksonomies than in single-topic folksonomies. This observation suggests that topic selection is an important strategy for recommendation in multi-topic folksonomies.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/1454008.1454048

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Shepitsen, A., Gemmell, J., Mobasher, B., & Burke, R.
Venue
Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Recommender systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2008-10-23
Pages
259-266
OpenAlex
W2064173066
Cited by
522
References
1
FWCI
32.53
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.