2012
DOI: 10.1007/s11257-012-9129-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The evaluation of a social adaptive website for cultural events

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
10
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

4
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
(43 reference statements)
1
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…() identify the roles of ‘lurkers’ and ‘posters’, where lurkers are members of online communities who read, but do not post, and posters are the few members who post content. These results have been recently confirmed by Gena et al . (nd): the results show that the most participating users contribute in the form of small contributions (clicking on a tag for insertion and clicking on like/dislike) and just a few of them generate bottom‐up contents. Analysing the users' tagging activity, they reported that 84% of user tags were the ones proposed by the system and just clicked on by the users, whereas the remaining 16% were inserted by users as free text.…”
Section: Related Worksupporting
confidence: 54%
“…() identify the roles of ‘lurkers’ and ‘posters’, where lurkers are members of online communities who read, but do not post, and posters are the few members who post content. These results have been recently confirmed by Gena et al . (nd): the results show that the most participating users contribute in the form of small contributions (clicking on a tag for insertion and clicking on like/dislike) and just a few of them generate bottom‐up contents. Analysing the users' tagging activity, they reported that 84% of user tags were the ones proposed by the system and just clicked on by the users, whereas the remaining 16% were inserted by users as free text.…”
Section: Related Worksupporting
confidence: 54%
“…To answer [RQ3], we compared the DSR algorithm with the iCITY algorithm, that had been given a positive performance rating in a real-world evaluation that lasted a few months (Gena et al, 2013). We compared them adopting precision, recall, accuracy and F 1 , that are well-known metrics for recommender systems (Shani and Gunawardana, 2011).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… to evaluate the usefulness of DSRs generated by our "social" DSR algorithm and to compare them with other, more traditional, kinds of recommendations;  to understand whether the item-recommendation part of our DSR algorithm has comparable performance, in terms of standard measures, such as precision and recall, to a collaborative filtering algorithm, in the context of a large offline study;  to understand whether, in the context of an online user study, our DSR algorithm performs better than a traditional content-based one which makes use of detailed information on the target user's preferences proved to have a good performance with a consolidated user model. The algorithm is described in detail by Carmagnola et al, 2008 andGena et al, 2013 for information on its evaluation;  to assess how much importance users give to the recommended item and group, respectively, when they are evaluating a DSR in a particular domain (we surmised that user preferences might depend on the type of suggestion they receive). This information is useful to understand how these two elements should contribute to the overall predicted score for a recommendation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The evaluation of a complex system, such as a semantic adaptive social system, requires the integration of methodologies from different areas (adaptive systems, recommender systems, social sciences) and the use of both qualitative and quantitative approaches. In particular, it is necessary to implement a combination of evaluation methodologies in order to verify all of the aspects involved in a semantic social application; mere qualitative evaluation is not enough (see Gena et al [2013]). In this sense, the article by Biancalana et al is a good example of an exhaustive evaluation, albeit does not present a novel approach.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%