Sigir ’94 1994
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4471-2099-5_28
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Information Filtering Based on User Behavior Analysis and Best Match Text Retrieval

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

8
187
1
2

Year Published

2001
2001
2010
2010

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 250 publications
(198 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
8
187
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The similarity between decision times for judging positively or extremely negatively against a document prohibits the use of such a metric from any further studies. Further to this, we were also impressed by the low reading times, which are in stark contrast with other studies that are concerned with the average reading time of a web document, such as [28], [27]. Other studies report average reading times closer to the ones we experiences, but again higher [29], [30], although these were not based on web documents.…”
Section: Discussion and Future Workcontrasting
confidence: 59%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The similarity between decision times for judging positively or extremely negatively against a document prohibits the use of such a metric from any further studies. Further to this, we were also impressed by the low reading times, which are in stark contrast with other studies that are concerned with the average reading time of a web document, such as [28], [27]. Other studies report average reading times closer to the ones we experiences, but again higher [29], [30], although these were not based on web documents.…”
Section: Discussion and Future Workcontrasting
confidence: 59%
“…Therefore it is apparent that the use of time as a metric is not a reliable source of information, since there is not much significant discrepancy between the average reading times for each feedback score. This observation brought about the decision to eliminate this metric from the weight recalculation formula, as it is in contrast with other findings, such as those by Morita [28] and Claypool [27], but seem to confirm Kelly's [29] conclusion that reading time is an unreliable source for implicit relevance feedback. …”
Section: Feedback Ratingsmentioning
confidence: 57%
“…To tackle those problems, two approaches have been proposed [3,29,21,23]. The first approach is to condense the user/item rating matrix through dimensionality reduction techniques such as Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) [3,29].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The second approach is to "enrich" the user/item rating matrix by 1) introducing default ratings or implicit user ratings, e.g., the time spent on reading articles [23]; 2) using half-baked rating predictions from content-based methods [21]; or 3) exploiting transitive associations among users through their past transactions and feedback [12]. These methods improve the performance of recommender systems to some extent.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The GroupLens project experimented with time-spent-reading as an implicit rating for Usenet news articles . Building on the work by Morita and Shinoda (1994) that showed that users spent more time reading articles they preferred, the GroupLens project was able to show that collaborative filtering was able to predict ratings for substantially more articles by using time-spent-reading and that the ratings predicted were of similar quality to explicit ratings-based predictions.…”
Section: Focusing Implicit Ratingsmentioning
confidence: 99%