哪一个图书推荐部分与LibraryThing中的用户选择最相似?

IF 2.1 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Global Knowledge Memory and Communication Pub Date : 2023-04-25 DOI:10.1108/gkmc-06-2022-0137
Atefeh Momeni, Mitra Pashootanizadeh, M. Kaedi
{"title":"哪一个图书推荐部分与LibraryThing中的用户选择最相似?","authors":"Atefeh Momeni, Mitra Pashootanizadeh, M. Kaedi","doi":"10.1108/gkmc-06-2022-0137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThis study aims to determine the most similar set of recommendation books to the user selections in LibraryThing.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nFor this purpose, 30,000 tags related to History on the LibraryThing have been selected. Their tags and the tags of the related recommended books were extracted from three different recommendations sections on LibraryThing. Then, four similarity criteria of Jaccard coefficient, Cosine similarity, Dice coefficient and Pearson correlation coefficient were used to calculate the similarity between the tags. To determine the most similar recommended section, the best similarity criterion had to be determined first. So, a researcher-made questionnaire was provided to History experts.\n\n\nFindings\nThe results showed that the Jaccard coefficient, with a frequency of 32.81, is the best similarity criterion from the point of view of History experts. Besides, the degree of similarity in LibraryThing recommendations section according to this criterion is equal to 0.256, in the section of books with similar library subjects and classifications is 0.163 and in the Member recommendations section is 0.152. Based on the findings of this study, the LibraryThing recommendations section has succeeded in introducing the most similar books to the selected book compared to the other two sections.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, itis for the first time, three sections of LibraryThing recommendations are compared by four different similarity criteria to show which sections would be more beneficial for the user browsing. The results showed that machine recommendations work better than humans.\n","PeriodicalId":43718,"journal":{"name":"Global Knowledge Memory and Communication","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Which of the book recommendation sections is the most similar to the user selections in LibraryThing?\",\"authors\":\"Atefeh Momeni, Mitra Pashootanizadeh, M. Kaedi\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/gkmc-06-2022-0137\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nThis study aims to determine the most similar set of recommendation books to the user selections in LibraryThing.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nFor this purpose, 30,000 tags related to History on the LibraryThing have been selected. Their tags and the tags of the related recommended books were extracted from three different recommendations sections on LibraryThing. Then, four similarity criteria of Jaccard coefficient, Cosine similarity, Dice coefficient and Pearson correlation coefficient were used to calculate the similarity between the tags. To determine the most similar recommended section, the best similarity criterion had to be determined first. So, a researcher-made questionnaire was provided to History experts.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThe results showed that the Jaccard coefficient, with a frequency of 32.81, is the best similarity criterion from the point of view of History experts. Besides, the degree of similarity in LibraryThing recommendations section according to this criterion is equal to 0.256, in the section of books with similar library subjects and classifications is 0.163 and in the Member recommendations section is 0.152. Based on the findings of this study, the LibraryThing recommendations section has succeeded in introducing the most similar books to the selected book compared to the other two sections.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, itis for the first time, three sections of LibraryThing recommendations are compared by four different similarity criteria to show which sections would be more beneficial for the user browsing. The results showed that machine recommendations work better than humans.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":43718,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Knowledge Memory and Communication\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Knowledge Memory and Communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/gkmc-06-2022-0137\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Knowledge Memory and Communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/gkmc-06-2022-0137","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在确定与LibraryThing中用户选择最相似的推荐图书集。设计/方法/方法为此,在LibraryThing上选择了30,000个与历史相关的标签。他们的标签和相关推荐书籍的标签是从LibraryThing上三个不同的推荐部分中提取出来的。然后,采用Jaccard系数、cos相似度、Dice系数和Pearson相关系数4个相似度准则计算标签之间的相似度。为了确定最相似的推荐部分,必须首先确定最佳相似标准。因此,研究人员向历史专家提供了一份调查问卷。结果表明,在历史专家看来,Jaccard系数是最佳相似度标准,其频率为32.81。此外,根据该标准,LibraryThing推荐部分的相似度为0.256,图书馆主题和分类相似的图书部分的相似度为0.163,Member推荐部分的相似度为0.152。根据这项研究的结果,与其他两个部分相比,LibraryThing推荐部分成功地介绍了与所选书籍最相似的书籍。原创性/价值据作者所知,这是第一次用四种不同的相似度标准来比较LibraryThing推荐的三个部分,以显示哪些部分对用户浏览更有益。结果表明,机器推荐的效果比人类更好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Which of the book recommendation sections is the most similar to the user selections in LibraryThing?
Purpose This study aims to determine the most similar set of recommendation books to the user selections in LibraryThing. Design/methodology/approach For this purpose, 30,000 tags related to History on the LibraryThing have been selected. Their tags and the tags of the related recommended books were extracted from three different recommendations sections on LibraryThing. Then, four similarity criteria of Jaccard coefficient, Cosine similarity, Dice coefficient and Pearson correlation coefficient were used to calculate the similarity between the tags. To determine the most similar recommended section, the best similarity criterion had to be determined first. So, a researcher-made questionnaire was provided to History experts. Findings The results showed that the Jaccard coefficient, with a frequency of 32.81, is the best similarity criterion from the point of view of History experts. Besides, the degree of similarity in LibraryThing recommendations section according to this criterion is equal to 0.256, in the section of books with similar library subjects and classifications is 0.163 and in the Member recommendations section is 0.152. Based on the findings of this study, the LibraryThing recommendations section has succeeded in introducing the most similar books to the selected book compared to the other two sections. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, itis for the first time, three sections of LibraryThing recommendations are compared by four different similarity criteria to show which sections would be more beneficial for the user browsing. The results showed that machine recommendations work better than humans.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Global Knowledge Memory and Communication
Global Knowledge Memory and Communication INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
77
期刊最新文献
Mapping covid-19 and transportation: a taxonomical study using bibliometric visualisation The persistence of print books: exploring language preference and format preference among Arabic-speaking library patrons in Jordan A checklist to publish collections as data in GLAM institutions A systematic literature review on the use of mobile phones to access library services and resources: challenges and benefits Citation analysis and mapping of genetics research in Iran
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1