DOCSLIB.ORG

Community, Impact and Credit: Where Should I Submit My Papers?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Community, Impact and Credit: Where Should I Submit My Papers? Panels February 23–27, 2013, San Antonio, Texas, USA Community, Impact and Credit: Where should I submit my papers? Abstract Aaron Halfaker R. Stuart Geiger We (the authors of CSCWs program) have finite time and GroupLens Research School of Information energy that can be invested into our publications and the University of Minnesota University of CA, Berkeley research communities we value. While we want our work [email protected] [email protected] to have the most impact possible, we also want to grow Cliff Lampe Loren Terveen and support productive research communities within School of Information GroupLens Research which to have this impact. This panel discussion explores Michigan State University University of Minnesota the costs and benefits of submitting papers to various [email protected] [email protected] tiers of conferences and journals surrounding CSCW and Amy Bruckman Brian Keegan reflects on the value of investing hours into building up a College of Computing Northeastern University research community. Georgia Inst. of Technology [email protected] [email protected] Author Keywords Aniket Kittur Geraldine Fitzpatrick community; credit; impact; publishing; peer review HCI Institute Vienna University of Carnegie Mellon University Technology ACM Classification Keywords [email protected] geraldine.fi[email protected] H.5.0. [Information Interfaces and Presentation (e.g. HCI)]: General Introduction We (the authors of CSCWs program) have finite time and energy that can be invested into our publications and the research communities we value. In order to allow our work to have an impact, we must also grow and maintain Copyright is held by the author/owner(s). productive research communities within which to share CSCW ’13 Companion, Feb. 23–27, 2013, San Antonio, Texas, USA. our work. This panel discussion explores the costs and ACM 978-1-4503-1332-2/13/02. benefits of submitting papers to various tiers of 89 Panels February 23–27, 2013, San Antonio, Texas, USA conferences and journals surrounding CSCW and reflects theoretically, decreases the activation energy necessary for Format: on the value of investing hours into building up a research forming new collaborations. But the way that conferences community. By comparing CSCW to restrictive, top tier accept and reject papers can have an effect on the type of • The panel presentation but general conferences like CHI and less restrictive, communities that are formed. will start with a short specialized conferences like WikiSym and RecSys, the introduction by the panelists will frame a discussion around the value of The first-round rejection process for most conference moderators. participation in different types of research communities proceedings encourages rejected submissions to be and how decisions on where to invest ones time affect resubmitted to a different conference { if not, we must • Each panelist will follow metrics used to evaluate our worth. wait almost a year before resubmission. A common but with a presentation of often unacknowledged practice is to therefore to resubmit their perspective on an This discussion is valuable because it provides an rejected papers to slightly or completely different aspect of the panels opportunity for experienced researchers to advise young conferences. Substantive comments about the quality of themes. researchers on which communities to invest their time. It the paper obviously ought to be addressed in revisions, will also provide an opportunity to address several trends but how much do we really think about revising the same • The moderators will relevant to the CSCW community: paper for a different conference? guide a discussion between the audience If our conferences are, as is commonly claimed, journals and panelists. • The merging role of top conferences and journals that meet once a year, what implications does the debate • The value of small, specialized conferences over revise and resubmit versus first-round rejection have for the boundaries and bridges between research • Inconsistencies between impact and impact metrics communities? If we are more like a journal and encourage revisions to be resubmitted, there is an argument that this To focus the discussion, panelists will address three would make authors target their submissions towards a themes of publication: community, impact and credit. particular venue. Yet is this a good thing or a bad thing? Each of these themes will be discussed both in terms of Does first-round rejection encourage authors to form their current state and where each panelist thinks they communities which are not coextensive with conferences ought to be. and are instead more ad-hoc around other areas of commonality? Or does this effectively silo similar kinds of Themes research into areas that do not interact with others in the Community same conference (Wikipedia research at CSCW, for How does the structure of research publication example). affect the kinds of communities we form? On the one hand, we can think of communities as existing around a single conference that extends outward (e.g. the Conferences are designed to bring people to the same CSCW, CHI, RecSys, or ICTD community), but we can physical space. This allows members of a research also think of communities as existing around other community to meet face-to-face to discuss their work, and common areas, such as common methodologies, 90 Panels February 23–27, 2013, San Antonio, Texas, USA theoretical approaches, and specific applications? increase the required investment required by reviewers but also allow for reviewers to have a more substantial impact on the quality of a program. • How does the structure of publication affect the kinds of communities that we form? • Where should researchers direct their effort? • How are the boundaries between research communities be drawn? { . for the benefit of their work? • Does the community have a conference or does a { . for the good of science? conference form a community? Credit Impact How do we measure the worth of a researcher What is impact and what types of impact can or a publication venue? researchers have? For better or worse, hiring and tenure committees often When we talk about impact, we usually mean moving the use impact metrics to judge the worthiness of applicants. field forward via publications of important research. The lack of an impressive citation count can dramatically However, the impact of a publication is not solely affect a researchers career. In this way, metrics dont just dependant on the quality of the research and manuscript, describe the pattern of publishing, but direct it as well. but also the audience to whom it is presented. In the ecosphere of conferences and journals, a line might be The quality of a conferences are also commonly evaluated drawn between small conferences with a limited focus and by a simple metric: acceptance rate. While acceptance large conferences with a broader focus. rate tends be an effective measure of the restrictiveness of conferences and journals that use similar review patterns, Submissions to smaller conferences may have fewer the metric ceases to be useful when comparing a potential readers, they also offer direct address to a tight conference with a revise and resubmit pattern to one with community which is more likely to respond productively to first round rejections only. Assuming that a revise and the submission. Conversely, papers published to large resubmit process is beneficial to the research community, conferences and journals will usually see a larger audience how does one weigh such benefits against the cost of a of potential readers but a smaller proportion of readers are higher acceptance rate? likely to find the research useful. But these measurements of impact do not capture all Further, not all impact happens via paper publications. meaningful contributions. As was mentioned above, not Service work like reviewing papers and being part of the all ways that a researcher can have impact in a field result program committee is necessary for a functioning peer in a paper with a lot of citations. When the measurement review system. Processes like revise and resubmit both does not capture the value of a contribution, it is likely to 91 Panels February 23–27, 2013, San Antonio, Texas, USA misdirect our efforts towards less worthy end. In this case, final decision to accept some and reject others feels are we obligated to ignore the metric. arbitrary; authors sometimes find their favorite papers do not make it in to the top conferences, but when published What are some contributions that we make, but do not at less prestigious conferences receive an enthusiastic get credit for? Is it important that reviewers receive credit response. Attending less selective conferences may expose for reviewing papers? How might we change our one to more relevant and interesting work and offer much measurements of impact to direct researchers better? greater networking and community building opportunities, and high rejection rates can lead individuals and whole Panelists sub-communities to stop participating in a conference. Loren Terveen In short, lots of people think the current publication Bio Loren Terveen is a professor in the Department of culture is broken. Within the past few years, a number of Computer Science and Enginereing at the University of conferences have experimented with alternative models, Minnesota. He specializes in human-computer interaction like CSCW's 2-phase-with-a-full-revision-cycle approach. and computer-mediated communication. His academic However, these alternatives raise challenges of their own, record includes about 50 refereed journal and conference both logistical (do they scale?) and evaluative (if the papers, one book, four book chapters, nine U.S. Patents, acceptance rate increases, how do we convince people in addition to numerous other publications. that our conference is still high quality?). I will talk briefly about some of the alternative models being considered Position Over the past 20 years, Computer Science and their pros and cons.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Grouplens Perspective
    From: AAAI Technical Report WS-98-08. Compilation copyright © 1998, AAAI (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved. RecommenderSystems: A GroupLensPerspective Joseph A. Konstan*t , John Riedl *t, AI Borchers,* and Jonathan L. Herlocker* *GroupLensResearch Project *Net Perceptions,Inc. Dept. of ComputerScience and Engineering 11200 West78th Street University of Minnesota Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN55455 Minneapolis, MN55344 http://www.cs.umn.edu/Research/GroupLens/ http://www.netperceptions.com/ ABSTRACT identifying sets of articles by keyworddoes not scale to a In this paper, wereview the history and research findings of situation in which there are thousands of articles that the GroupLensResearch project I and present the four broad contain any imaginable set of keywords. Taken together, research directions that we feel are most critical for these two weaknesses represented an opportunity for a new recommender systems. type of filtering, that would focus on finding which INTRODUCTION:A History of the GroupLensProject available articles matchhuman notions of quality and taste. The GroupLens Research project began at the Computer Such a system would be able to produce a list of articles Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)Conference in 1992. that each user wouldlike, independentof their content. Oneof the keynote speakers at the conference lectured on a Wedecided to apply our ideas in the domain of Usenet his vision of an emerging information economy,in which news. Usenet screamsfor better information filtering, with most of the effort in the economywould revolve around hundreds of thousands of articles posted daily. Manyof the production, distribution, and consumptionof information, articles in each Usenet newsgroupare on the sametopic, so rather than physical goods and services.
    [Show full text]
  • A Recommender System for Groups of Users
    PolyLens: A Recommender System for Groups of Users Mark O’Connor, Dan Cosley, Joseph A. Konstan, and John Riedl Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA {oconnor;cosley;konstan;riedl}@cs.umn.edu Abstract. We present PolyLens, a new collaborative filtering recommender system designed to recommend items for groups of users, rather than for individuals. A group recommender is more appropriate and useful for domains in which several people participate in a single activity, as is often the case with movies and restaurants. We present an analysis of the primary design issues for group recommenders, including questions about the nature of groups, the rights of group members, social value functions for groups, and interfaces for displaying group recommendations. We then report on our PolyLens prototype and the lessons we learned from usage logs and surveys from a nine-month trial that included 819 users. We found that users not only valued group recommendations, but were willing to yield some privacy to get the benefits of group recommendations. Users valued an extension to the group recommender system that enabled them to invite non-members to participate, via email. Introduction Recommender systems (Resnick & Varian, 1997) help users faced with an overwhelming selection of items by identifying particular items that are likely to match each user’s tastes or preferences (Schafer et al., 1999). The most sophisticated systems learn each user’s tastes and provide personalized recommendations. Though several machine learning and personalization technologies can attempt to learn user preferences, automated collaborative filtering (Resnick et al., 1994; Shardanand & Maes, 1995) has become the preferred real-time technology for personal recommendations, in part because it leverages the experiences of an entire community of users to provide high quality recommendations without detailed models of either content or user tastes.
    [Show full text]
  • Improvements in Holistic Recommender System Research
    Improvements in Holistic Recommender System Research A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Daniel Allen Kluver IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Joseph A. Konstan August, 2018 c Daniel Allen Kluver 2018 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my family, my friends, my advisers John Riedl and Joseph Konstan, my colleagues, both at GroupLens research and at Macalester College, and everyone else who believed in me and supported me along the way. Your support meant everything when I couldn’t support myself. Your belief meant everything when I couldn’t believe in myself. I couldn’t have done this without your help. i Abstract Since the mid 1990s, recommender systems have grown to be a major area of de- ployment in industry, and research in academia. A through-line in this research has been the pursuit, above all else, of the perfect algorithm. With this admirable focus has come a neglect of the full scope of building, maintaining, and improving recom- mender systems. In this work I outline a system deployment and a series of offline and online experiments dedicated to improving our holistic understanding of recommender systems. This work explores the design, algorithms, early performance, and interfaces of recommender systems within the scope of how they are interconnected with other aspects of the system. This work explores many indivisual aspects of a recommender system while keeping in mind how they are connected to other aspects of
    [Show full text]
  • Truth and Lies of What People Are Really Thinking
    Dedication For Lex and Stella Epigraph Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth —Falsely attributed to Marcus Aurelius (author unknown) Contents Cover Title Page Dedication Epigraph Introduction Part One Genuine Deceptions 1 Body Language Lies 2 Powerful Thinking 3 Mind Your Judgments 4 Scan for Truth Part Two Dating 5 They’re Totally Checking Me Out! 6 Playing Hard-to-Get 7 Just Feeling Sorry for Me 8 I’m Being Ghosted 9 What a Complete Psycho! 10 They Are Running the Show 11 I’m Going to Pay for That! 12 They Are So Mad at Me 13 A Lying Cheat? 14 Definitely into My Friend 15 A Match Made in Heaven? 16 They Are So Breaking Up! Part Three Friends and Family 17 Thick as Thieves 18 My New Bff? 19 Fomo 20 Control Freak 21 Too Close for Comfort 22 They’ll Never Fit in with My Family 23 House on Fire! 24 I Am Boring the Pants off Them 25 Lying Through Their Teeth 26 Persona Non Grata 27 Invisible Me Part Four Working Life 28 I Aced That Interview—So, Where’s the Job Offer? 29 They Hate My Work 30 Big Dog 31 Never Going to See Eye to Eye 32 Cold Fish 33 They’re Gonna Blow! 34 This Meeting Is a Waste of Time 35 Looks Like a Winning Team 36 So, You Think You’re the Boss 37 Hand in the Cookie Jar Summary Bonus Bluff Learn more Acknowledgments Notes About the Authors Praise for Truth & Lies Also by Mark Bowden Copyright About the Publisher Introduction WE CAN ALL RECALL EXAMPLES when our sense of what another person was thinking turned out to be the truth.
    [Show full text]
  • User Session Identification Based on Strong Regularities in Inter-Activity
    User Session Identification Based on Strong Regularities in Inter-activity Time Aaron Halfaker Os Keyes Daniel Kluver Wikimedia Foundation Wikimedia Foundation GroupLens Research [email protected] [email protected] University of Minnesota [email protected] Jacob Thebault-Spieker Tien Nguyen Kenneth Shores GroupLens Research GroupLens Research GroupLens Research University of Minnesota University of Minnesota University of Minnesota [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Anuradha Uduwage Morten Warncke-Wang GroupLens Research GroupLens Research University of Minnesota University of Minnesota [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT 1. INTRODUCTION Session identification is a common strategy used to develop In 2012, we had an idea for a measurement strategy that metrics for web analytics and behavioral analyses of user- would bring insight and understanding to the nature of par- facing systems. Past work has argued that session identifica- ticipation in an online community. While studying partic- tion strategies based on an inactivity threshold is inherently ipation in Wikipedia, the open, collaborative encyclopedia, arbitrary or advocated that thresholds be set at about 30 we found ourselves increasingly curious about the amount of minutes. In this work, we demonstrate a strong regularity time that volunteer contributors invested into the encyclope- in the temporal rhythms of user initiated events across sev- dia's construction. Past work measuring editor engagement eral different domains of online activity (incl. video gaming, relied on counting the number of contributions made by a search, page views and volunteer contributions). We de- user1, but we felt that the amount of time editors spent scribe a methodology for identifying clusters of user activity editing might serve as a more appropriate measure.
    [Show full text]
  • A Roll of the Dice
    Confidence Displays and Training in Recommender Systems Sean M. McNee, Shyong K. Lam, Catherine Guetzlaff, Joseph A. Konstan, and John Riedl GroupLens Research Project Department of Computer Science and Engineering University of Minnesota, MN 55455 USA {mcnee, lam, guetzlaf, konstan, riedl}@cs.umn.edu Abstract: Recommender systems help users sort through vast quantities of information. Sometimes, however, users do not know if they can trust the recommendations they receive. Adding a confidence metric has the potential to improve user satisfaction and alter user behavior in a recommender system. We performed an experiment to measure the effects of a confidence display as a component of an existing collaborative filtering- based recommender system. Minimal training improved use of the confidence display compared to no training. Novice users were less likely to notice, understand, and use the confidence display than experienced users of the system. Providing training about a confidence display to experienced users greatly reduced user satisfaction in the recommender system. These results raise interesting issues and demonstrate subtle effects about how and when to train users when adding features to a system. Keywords: Recommender Systems, Collaborative Filtering, Confidence Displays, Risk, Training range. For example, a fan of science fiction may 1 Introduction receive a recommendation for a particular art film because other science fiction fans liked it. This People face the problem of information overload serendipity in recommendations is one of the every day. As the number of web sites, books, strengths of collaborative filtering. magazines, research papers, and so on continue to It is also one of its weaknesses. CF algorithms rise, it is getting harder to keep up.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating Collaborative Filtering Recommender Systems
    Evaluating Collaborative Filtering Recommender Systems JONATHAN L. HERLOCKER Oregon State University and JOSEPH A. KONSTAN, LOREN G. TERVEEN, and JOHN T. RIEDL University of Minnesota Recommender systems have been evaluated in many, often incomparable, ways. In this article, we review the key decisions in evaluating collaborative filtering recommender systems: the user tasks being evaluated, the types of analysis and datasets being used, the ways in which prediction quality is measured, the evaluation of prediction attributes other than quality, and the user-based evaluation of the system as a whole. In addition to reviewing the evaluation strategies used by prior researchers, we present empirical results from the analysis of various accuracy metrics on one con- tent domain where all the tested metrics collapsed roughly into three equivalence classes. Metrics within each equivalency class were strongly correlated, while metrics from different equivalency classes were uncorrelated. Categories and Subject Descriptors: H.3.4 [Information Storage and Retrieval]: Systems and Software—performance Evaluation (efficiency and effectiveness) General Terms: Experimentation, Measurement, Performance Additional Key Words and Phrases: Collaborative filtering, recommender systems, metrics, evaluation 1. INTRODUCTION Recommender systems use the opinions of a community of users to help indi- viduals in that community more effectively identify content of interest from a potentially overwhelming set of choices [Resnick and Varian 1997]. One of This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under grants DGE 95- 54517, IIS 96-13960, IIS 97-34442, IIS 99-78717, IIS 01-02229, and IIS 01-33994, and by Net Perceptions, Inc. Authors’ addresses: J. L. Herlocker, School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Oregon State University, 102 Dearborn Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331; email: [email protected]; J.
    [Show full text]
  • The Production and Consumption of Quality Content in Peer Production Communities
    The Production and Consumption of Quality Content in Peer Production Communities A Dissertation SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Morten Warncke-Wang IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Loren Terveen and Brent Hecht December, 2016 Copyright c 2016 M. Warncke-Wang All rights reserved. Portions copyright c Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) and is used in accordance with the ACM Author Agreement. Portions copyright c Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) and is used in accordance with the AAAI Distribution License. Map tiles used in illustrations are from Stamen Design and published under a CC BY 3.0 license, and from OpenStreetMap and published under the ODbL. Dedicated in memory of John. T. Riedl, Ph.D professor, advisor, mentor, squash player, friend i Acknowledgements This work would not be possible without the help and support of a great number of people. I would first like to thank my family, in particular my parents Kari and Hans who have had to see yet another of their offspring fly off to the United States for a prolonged period of time. They have supported me in pursuing my dreams even when it meant I would be away from them. I also thank my brother Hans and his fiancée Anna for helping me get settled in Minnesota, solving everyday problems, and for the good company whenever I stopped by. Likewise, I thank my brother Carl and his wife Bente whom I have only been able to see ever so often, but it has always been moments I have cherished.
    [Show full text]
  • Item-Based Collaborative Filtering Recommendation Algorithms
    Item-Based Collaborative Filtering Recommendation Algorithms Badrul Sarwar, George Karypis, Joseph Konstan, and John Riedl f×aÖÛaÖ¸ kaÖÝÔi׸ kÓÒ×ØaÒ¸ ÖiedÐg@c׺ÙÑÒºedÙ GroupLens Research Group/Army HPC Research Center Department of Computer Science and Engineering University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455 ÚaiÐabÐe iÒfÓÖÑaØiÓÒ ØÓ ¬Òd ØhaØ Ûhichi× ABSTRACT ØhÖÓÙgh aÐÐ Øhe a ÑÓ×Ø ÚaÐÙabÐe ØÓ Ù׺ ÊecÓÑÑeÒdeÖ ×Ý×ØeÑ× aÔÔÐÝ kÒÓÛÐedge di×cÓÚeÖÝ ØechÒiÕÙe× ÇÒe Óf Øhe ÑÓ×Ø ÔÖÓÑi×iÒg ×ÙchØechÒÓÐÓgie× i× cÓÐ ÐabÓÖa¹ ØÓ Øhe ÔÖÓbÐeÑ Óf ÑakiÒg Ô eÖ×ÓÒaÐiÞed ÖecÓÑÑeÒdaØiÓÒ× fÓÖ ØiÚe ¬ÐØeÖiÒg [½9¸ ¾7¸ ½4¸ ½6]º CÓÐÐab ÓÖaØiÚe ¬ÐØeÖiÒg ÛÓÖk× bÝ iÒfÓÖÑaØiÓÒ¸ ÔÖÓ dÙcØ× ÓÖ ×eÖÚice× dÙÖiÒg a ÐiÚeiÒØeÖacØiÓÒº bÙiÐdiÒg a daØaba×e Óf ÔÖefeÖeÒce× fÓÖ iØeÑ× bÝ Ù×eÖ׺ AÒeÛ Ìhe×e ×Ý×ØeÑ׸ e×Ô eciaÐÐÝ Øhe k¹ÒeaÖe×Ø ÒeighbÓÖ cÓÐÐabÓÖa¹ Ù×eÖ¸ ÆeÓ¸ i× ÑaØched agaiÒ×Ø Øhe daØaba×e ØÓ di×cÓÚeÖ Òeigh¹ ØiÚe ¬ÐØeÖiÒg ba×ed ÓÒe׸ aÖe achieÚiÒg Ûide×ÔÖead ×Ùcce×× ÓÒ bÓÖ׸ Ûhich aÖe ÓØheÖ Ù×eÖ× ÛhÓ haÚe hi×ØÓÖicaÐÐÝ had ×iÑiÐaÖ Øhe Ïebº Ìhe ØÖeÑeÒdÓÙ× gÖÓÛØh iÒ Øhe aÑÓÙÒØÓfaÚaiй Øa×Øe ØÓ ÆeÓº ÁØeÑ× ØhaØ Øhe Òeighb ÓÖ× Ðike aÖe ØheÒ ÖecÓѹ abÐe iÒfÓÖÑaØiÓÒ aÒd Øhe ÒÙÑb eÖ Óf Úi×iØÓÖ× ØÓ Ïeb ×iØe× iÒ ÑeÒded ØÓ ÆeÓ¸ a× he ÛiÐÐ ÔÖÓbabÐÝ aÐ×Ó Ðike ØheѺ CÓÐÐab¹ ÖeceÒØÝeaÖ× Ô Ó×e× ×ÓÑe keÝ chaÐÐeÒge× fÓÖ ÖecÓÑÑeÒdeÖ ×Ý×¹ ÓÖaØiÚe ¬ÐØeÖiÒg ha× beeÒ ÚeÖÝ ×Ùcce××fÙÐ iÒ b ÓØh Öe×eaÖch ØeÑ׺ Ìhe×e aÖe: ÔÖÓ dÙciÒg high ÕÙaÐiØÝ ÖecÓÑÑeÒdaØiÓÒ׸ aÒd ÔÖacØice¸ aÒd iÒ b ÓØh iÒfÓÖÑaØiÓÒ ¬ÐØeÖiÒg aÔÔÐicaØiÓÒ× Ô eÖfÓÖÑiÒg ÑaÒÝ ÖecÓÑÑeÒdaØiÓÒ× Ô eÖ ×ecÓÒd fÓÖ ÑiÐÐiÓÒ× aÒd E¹cÓÑÑeÖce aÔÔÐicaØiÓÒ׺
    [Show full text]
  • Movielens Unplugged: Experiences with an Occasionally Connected Recommender System
    MovieLens Unplugged: Experiences with an Occasionally Connected Recommender System Bradley N. Miller, Istvan Albert, Shyong K. Lam, Joseph A. Konstan, John Riedl GroupLens Research Group University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 55455 {bmiller,ialbert,lam,konstan,riedl}@cs.umn.edu http://www.grouplens.org ABSTRACT do not help you when you are browsing the aisles of your Recommender systems have changed the way people shop favorite bricks and mortar store. online. Recommender systems on wireless mobile devices Imagine that you have just come to the end of the new re- may have the same impact on the way people shop in stores. lease aisle at your local video store. Nothing along the way We present our experience with implementing a recommender caught your attention and the rows and rows of older videos system on a PDA that is occasionally connected to the net- look too daunting to even start wandering through. What work. This interface helps users of the MovieLens movie rec- do you do? Do you leave the store empty handed? No, ommendation service select movies to rent, buy, or see while instead you pull out your PDA and start up its browser. away from their computer. The results of a nine month field Through the PDA’s browser you access the MovieLens Un- study show that although there are several challenges to plugged (MLU) service that recommends videos you might overcome, mobile recommender systems have the potential be interested in. One of the highest recommended videos is to provide value to their users today. just what you had in mind so you find it and rent it for the night.
    [Show full text]
  • Narayan Umn 0130M 20436.Pdf
    What is the Value of Rating Obscure Items? An Analysis of the Effect of Less-Popular Item Ratings on Recommendation Quality A Dissertation SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Anshuman Narayan IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF SCIENCE Joseph A. Konstan June, 2019 Copyright © 2019 A. Narayan. All rights reserved. Dedicated in honor of Shashi Narayan and Krishnan Adhi Narayan i Acknowledgements Many people have helped me along this two-year journey to complete my Master’s degree and I would be remiss in not thanking them. I would like to thank Professor Joseph Konstan for guiding me through this journey and teaching me so much about not only recommender systems but also how to conduct good research work and in- culcating in me the perseverance to conduct and complete this work. I owe a lot of what I have learned these two years to him. I would like to thank the Professors at the University of Minnesota that I’ve been fortunate enough to study under for all the knowledge I’ve gained from them. I have gained immense respect and inspiration from witnessing the passion they hold for teaching. I leave the this University knowing so much more, and knowing that there is so much more to know, and I am indebted to them for this. I would like to thank members of the GroupLens research lab for their patience and kindness in helping me,providing me great advice and always being open to discussing whatever I was stuck with.
    [Show full text]
  • C. Estelle Smith
    C. ESTELLE SMITH Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering Phone: 612.226.7789 University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Email: [email protected] Kenneth H. Keller Hall Twitter: @memyselfandHCI 200 Union St. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455 Website: colleenestellesmith.com EDUCATION University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, MN 2016-2020 (expected) Ph.D. in GroupLens Research Lab Areas of specialization: Human-Computer Interaction and Social Computing Thesis title: Beyond Social Support: Spiritual Support as a Novel Design Dimension in Sociotechnical Systems Dissertation committee: Loren Terveen (advisor, Dept. Computer Science), Susan O’Conner-Von (co-advisor, School of Nursing, Center for Spirituality & Healing), Joseph Konstan (committee member, Dept. Computer Science), Daniel Keefe (committee member, Dept. Computer Science) Thesis proposal: July 2020 University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, MN 2005-2010, B.A., English Literature (2010); B.S., Neuroscience (2015) 2014-2015 Graduation Summa Cum Laude Lifson/Johnson Memorial Teaching Award (2015) Phi Beta Kappa Honor Society (2014) RESEARCH Research Interests: Social Support in Online Communities, Human-Centered Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence, Science Communications and Public Scholarship Publications C. Estelle Smith, Zachary Levonian, Robert Giaquinto, Haiwei Ma, Gemma Lein-McDonough, Zixuan Li, Susan O’Conner-Von, and Svetlana Yarosh. "I Cannot Do All of This Alone": Exploring Instrumental and Prayer Support in Online Health Communities. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI). (Accepted May 2020) C. Estelle Smith, Bowen Yu, Anjali Srivastava, Aaron Halfaker, Loren Terveen, and Haiyi Zhu. Keeping Community in the Loop: Understanding Wikipedia Stakeholder Values for Machine Learning-Based Systems. Proc. CHI 2020. (Acceptance Rate: 24.3%) Best Paper Honorable Mention Award (Top 5% of submissions) C.
    [Show full text]