Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Information Interaction in Context 2008
DOI: 10.1145/1414694.1414708
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Learning user interests for a session-based personalized search

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
20
0
1

Year Published

2010
2010
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
20
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This means that concepts are linked by using the taxonomic relationship IS-A. To re-rank the documents according to the user profile, it means that only the concepts that represent the Web pages (for more details see [65]) visited by the user during the previous queries at time t − 1 are taken into account. Then, each selected concept from the ODP (i.e., c j ) is represented as a single term vectorc j , and its similarity score withK t is computed as score(c j ) = cos(c j ,K t .).…”
Section: Approaches Defined To Re-rank the Search Results Based On Thmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This means that concepts are linked by using the taxonomic relationship IS-A. To re-rank the documents according to the user profile, it means that only the concepts that represent the Web pages (for more details see [65]) visited by the user during the previous queries at time t − 1 are taken into account. Then, each selected concept from the ODP (i.e., c j ) is represented as a single term vectorc j , and its similarity score withK t is computed as score(c j ) = cos(c j ,K t .).…”
Section: Approaches Defined To Re-rank the Search Results Based On Thmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although this method showed an improvement over the original cosine similarity, the accumulation behaviour that it induces puts more emphasis on the top level classes which are too general to represent actual user interests, while middle and low level classes receive less attention. Daoud et al (2008) concur that representing interests with level two of an ontology is too general, while a leaf node representation is too detailed. They suggested that the most relevant concept is the one that has the greater number of dependencies.…”
Section: Stage Three: Mapping Documents To a Reference Ontologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The second technique, which was suggested by (Middleton et al, 2004) and (Kim et al, 2007) is adding 50% of each sub-concept's weight to its super-concept, and repeats this process until reaching the root. The third technique is the Sub-class Aggregation Scheme (SAS) that was proposed in (Daoud et al, 2008) where user interests are represented using level three of the ontology. The weight for each level-three concept is computed by adding the weights of its sub-concepts.…”
Section: Evaluation Of the Gew And 3c Algorithmsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ranking can be done in same search period based on highest interest scores with topic similarity. Accumulating nodes and edges to user profile allocates topics where user is interested in search session (Daoud et al, 2008).…”
Section: Constructing the User Profile Over A Search Sessionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The user profile is embodied using user search record in a search session. User profile is constructed over a search session to personalize search (Daoud et al, 2008).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%