Abstract-One of the principal goals for most research scientists is to publish. There are many thousands of publications: journals, conferences, workshops, and more, covering different topics and requiring different writing formats. However, when a researcher that is new to a certain research domain finishes the work, it is sometimes difficult to find a proper place to submit the paper. To solve this problem, we provide a collaborativefiltering-based recommendation system that can provide venue recommendations to researchers. In particular, we consider both topic and writing-style information, and differentiate the contributions of different kinds of neighboring papers to make such recommendations. Experiments based on real-world data from ACM and CiteSeer digital libraries demonstrate that our approach can provide effective recommendations.
The popularity of Web 2.0 has resulted in a large number of publicly available online consumer reviews created by a demographically diverse user base. Information about the authors of these reviews, such as age, gender and location, provided by many online consumer review platforms may allow companies to better understand the preferences of different market segments and improve their product design, manufacturing processes and marketing campaigns accordingly. However, previous work in sentiment analysis has largely ignored these additional user meta-data. To address this deficiency, in this paper, we propose parametric and non-parametric User-aware Sentiment Topic Models (USTM) that incorporate demographic information of review authors into topic modeling process in order to discover associations between market segments, topical aspects and sentiments. Qualitative examination of the topics discovered using USTM framework in the two datasets collected from popular online consumer review platforms as well as quantitative evaluation of the methods utilizing those topics for the tasks of review sentiment classification and user attribute prediction both indicate the utility of accounting for demographic information of review authors in opinion mining.
Traumatic brain injury due to primary blast loading has become a signature injury in recent military conflicts and terrorist activities. Extensive experimental and computational investigations have been conducted to study the interrelationships between intracranial pressure response and intrinsic or 'input' parameters such as the head geometry and loading conditions. However, these relationships are very complicated and are usually implicit and 'hidden' in a large amount of simulation/test data. In this study, a data mining method is proposed to explore such underlying information from the numerical simulation results. The heads of different species are described as a highly simplified two-part (skull and brain) finite element model with varying geometric parameters. The parameters considered include peak incident pressure, skull thickness, brain radius and snout length. Their interrelationship and coupling effect are discovered by developing a decision tree based on the large simulation data-set. The results show that the proposed data-driven method is superior to the conventional linear regression method and is comparable to the nonlinear regression method. Considering its capability of exploring implicit information and the relatively simple relationships between response and input variables, the data mining method is considered to be a good tool for an in-depth understanding of the mechanisms of blast-induced brain injury. As a general method, this approach can also be applied to other nonlinear complex biomechanical systems.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.