Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 129 references

Skill-based Explanations for Serendipitous Course Recommendation

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that automatically extracted skill-based explanations can make serendipitous course recommendations more approachable, raising interest in highly unexpected courses and reducing neutral responses among undeclared students.

desk verdict Solid concept-extraction engineering and honest null results in the body, but the abstract overstates the user-study findings. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.19569 v1 pith:BOWAILUN submitted 2025-08-27 cs.AI

Hung Chau , Run Yu , Zachary Pardos , Peter Brusilovsky This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords skill-basedexplanationsserendipitouscourserecommendationconceptextractionexplainablesystemsBERTBi-LSTM-CRFuserstudy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Course recommendation systems can tell a student which classes to take next, but they rarely say why, especially when the suggestions are deliberately surprising. This paper argues that showing students two short lists of skills—ones they already have from past courses and ones the recommended course would newly teach—makes those surprising suggestions easier to take seriously. To test this, the authors first build a concept extraction model that labels keyphrases in course descriptions as skills, combining BERT and Bi-LSTM-CRF models trained on public academic corpora. They then plug the extracted skills into a live course-guidance system powered by a sequential deep-learning recommender and run a between-subjects user study with 53 undergraduates. The headline finding is that explanations did not change overall ratings, but they reduced neutral responses and, among undeclared students, cut the share of neutral ratings sharply; the paper interprets this as stronger decision confidence and more interest in highly unexpected courses.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a two-part explanation generator. First, a concept extraction model treats course-description words as sequence labels and combines BERT with a Bi-LSTM-CRF in a stacking ensemble trained on the IIR textbook index, KP20K scientific abstracts, and Wikipedia, reaching an F1 of 0.685 on a 50-course test set and 86–91% expert-rated accuracy. Second, the extracted keyphrases are treated as skills and embedded with the all-mpnet-base-v2 version of SBERT. Learned skills are defined as the intersection of the recommended course's skill set with the union of skills from the student's past courses; new skills are the target course's skills minus that union. Cosine similarity ra

What would settle it

Run the same user study with sham explanations: show students the same number of keyphrases drawn from unrelated courses. If interest and confidence improve just as much, the skill-based content is not the active ingredient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that skill-based explanations act as a bridge between what a student already knows and what an unfamiliar course offers, changing how students respond to recommendations the system flags as surprising. The explanation shows two sets: learned skills (target-course skills the student has met before) and new skills (target-course skills absent from the student's history), extracted by a BERT + Bi-LSTM-CRF ensemble and matched by SBERT cosine similarity with a 0.85 threshold. In a between-subjects study of 53 undergraduates, explanations did not change overall interest or serendipity ratings, but they significantly reduced neutral responses among undeclared students (36.7% to 16

Load-bearing premise

The entire explanation pipeline assumes that the phrases pulled out of course descriptions really are the skills a course teaches, and that two phrases count as the same skill when a similarity score tops 0.85.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If explanations work this way, recommenders can add personalized justifications without expensive manual annotation, because the concept extractor transfers from public corpora to course descriptions.
  • Serendipity-based recommenders become safer to deploy: the one-per-department diversification can surface unfamiliar courses without students dismissing them, since explanations supply a reason to consider them.
  • Undeclared students—precisely those with the least guidance—are the ones whose neutrality drops most, so skill explanations target the group that needs help most.
  • Evaluation of explainable recommenders should measure neutral-response reduction and decision confidence, not just mean ratings, because the overall rating effect was absent while choice quality changed.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural next experiment would show students the same number of keyphrases drawn from unrelated courses; if interest and confidence rise just as much, the effect is generic information provision, not skill matching.
  • The 0.85 cosine threshold is doing a lot of work; testing whether the explanation effect survives with exact string matching or with a lower threshold would reveal how much semantic equivalence really matters.
  • If skill extraction improves—for example, with large language models or a true educational ontology—the same design might show larger effects, since the current extractor's F1 is modest and skills are only keyphrases.
  • The one-per-department diversification rule is a blunt instrument; replacing it with a relevance threshold or multi-objective training could make serendipity itself stronger and the explanation effects less noisy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a deep-learning concept extraction model for course descriptions (BERT + Bi-LSTM-CRF stacking ensemble) and uses the extracted keyphrases as 'skills' in a serendipitous course recommendation system based on PLAN-BERT at UC Berkeley. A between-subjects user study (N=53) compared skill-based explanations versus no explanation on self-reported interest, unexpectedness, novelty, and a composite serendipity measure, with additional post-hoc analyses of neutral ratings by declared/undeclared major. The abstract and introduction claim that the explanations increase user interest, especially for highly unexpected courses, and bolster decision-making confidence. The paper also reports the concept extractor's offline performance and an expert evaluation of extracted concepts.

Significance. If the headline claims were supported, the paper would make a useful contribution to explainable educational recommendation: a reusable concept extraction pipeline, a deployed serendipitous recommender, and a user study linking skill-based explanations to interest in unexpected courses. The strengths include the reproducible nature of the extraction models (public datasets, GitHub repository), the expert evaluation of extracted concepts (Table 3), and the use of mixed-effects models to account for repeated measures. However, the central empirical claims are not supported by the paper's own statistics: the main effects of explanation on interest, unexpectedness, novelty, and serendipity are all nonsignificant, and the high-unexpectedness subgroup effect has p=0.304. The confidence finding rests on a post-hoc dichotomization with small per-cell samples. As a result, the paper's positive framing materially overstates what the data show, and the main contribution—evidence that skill-based explanations increase interest in serendipitous recommendations—is not established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Section 4.3.3]
  2. [Section 4.3.4; Figure 11]
  3. [Section 4.2; Section 3.4]
  4. [Section 5; Section 4.3.2]
minor comments (4)
  1. [Various]
  2. [Section 4.3.3]
  3. [Appendix A, Figures A1 and A2]
  4. [Section 4.2]

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation; user-study claim is an independent empirical result. Minor non-load-bearing self-citations to PLAN-BERT and prior explanation study justify at most a low score.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The concept extraction model (Section 3) is trained on public datasets (KP20K, Wikipedia, IIR) and evaluated on 50 manually annotated course descriptions; the expert evaluation (Section 3.4) is an external check. The skill-matching threshold (Section 4.2, 'cosine similarity... exceeds 0.85') is a hand-tuned heuristic, but it is not fitted to the user-study outcome measures. The central claim—that skill-based explanations affect interest, confidence, etc.—is tested with a between-subjects user study (Section 4.3.2) whose conditions are not constructed from the outcome variables. Learned/New Skills (Eqs. 1-2) are definitions for constructing explanations, not predictions fitted to the dependent variables. The paper relies on author self-citations (PLAN-BERT [96]; prior explanation study [124]) as motivation and infrastructure, but the current findings stand or fall on the new experiment, not on those citations. The Discussion explicitly concedes the study 'did not conclusively determine whether explanations improve recommendation effectiveness' and notes the main effects are largely non-significant (Section 4.3.3: p=0.91, 0.94, 0.371, 0.881). This is a statistical/interpretive weakness, not a circularity. No equation reduces a reported effect to an input by construction. Score 2 reflects only minor, non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central user-study claim rests mainly on domain assumptions about skills extracted from course descriptions, transferability of extraction models, and the validity of self-reported Likert scales. The only numeric values chosen by hand that materially affect the explanations are the 0.85 matching threshold and the top-7 skill counts. No new theoretical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • skill_matching_cosine_threshold = 0.85
    Section 4.2: two skills are considered a match if cosine similarity exceeds 0.85, 'chosen based on experimental analysis with SBERT's embeddings'.
  • num_learned_skills_in_explanation = 7
    Section 4.3.1: top 7 acquired skills are presented to students.
  • num_new_skills_in_explanation = 7
    Section 4.3.1: top 7 new skills are presented to students.
  • max_skills_words = 5
    Section 4.3.1: post-processing removes skills containing more than 5 words.
  • min_course_description_words = 7
    Section 4.3.1: 553 courses with fewer than 7 words in description were excluded.
  • department_diversity_limit = 1 per department
    Section 4.1: diversification strategy allows only one result per department.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Models trained on Wikipedia, scientific abstracts, and textbook sections transfer to course descriptions without domain adaptation.
    Section 3 states this assumption directly: 'assuming the source and target domains are sufficiently similar to avoid additional adaptation.'
  • domain assumption A student is assumed to know every skill extracted from the descriptions of courses they have taken.
    Equations (1) and (2) in Section 4.2 define learned skills as the intersection of the target course's skills with the union of skills from taken courses.
  • domain assumption Self-reported Likert ratings of interest, unexpectedness, and novelty are valid proxies for course adoption and decision quality.
    Used throughout Section 4.3; the discussion in Section 5 admits 'reliance on questionnaire-based user feedback comes with inherent drawbacks.'
  • domain assumption Keyphrase extraction can be framed as sequence labeling with contiguous B/I/O spans.
    Section 3 defines labels B, I, O for start, continuation, absence; this assumes concepts are contiguous text spans.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Skill-based Explanations for Serendipitous Course Recommendation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BOWAILUN

@misc{pith2026250819569,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Skill-based Explanations for Serendipitous Course Recommendation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BOWAILUN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19569}
}
read the original abstract

Academic choice is crucial in U.S. undergraduate education, allowing students significant freedom in course selection. However, navigating the complex academic environment is challenging due to limited information, guidance, and an overwhelming number of choices, compounded by time restrictions and the high demand for popular courses. Although career counselors exist, their numbers are insufficient, and course recommendation systems, though personalized, often lack insight into student perceptions and explanations to assess course relevance. In this paper, a deep learning-based concept extraction model is developed to efficiently extract relevant concepts from course descriptions to improve the recommendation process. Using this model, the study examines the effects of skill-based explanations within a serendipitous recommendation framework, tested through the AskOski system at the University of California, Berkeley. The findings indicate that these explanations not only increase user interest, particularly in courses with high unexpectedness, but also bolster decision-making confidence. This underscores the importance of integrating skill-related data and explanations into educational recommendation systems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

129 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    restore the promise of graduating on time

    (2014) Four-year myth: Make college more affordable. restore the promise of graduating on time. Complete College America. Indianapolis, retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED558792.pdf 26 Fig. A1: Distribution of ‘Neutral’ ratings for the statement ‘I am interested in taking this course.’ among four groups based on the interactions between m...

    2014

  2. [2]

    In: Proceedings of the 2022 Confer- ence on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

    Agrawal M, Hegselmann S, Lang H, et al (2022) Large language models are few-shot clinical information extractors. In: Proceedings of the 2022 Confer- ence on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, pp 1998–2022, https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.130, URL https:...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.130 2022

  3. [3]

    ACM, pp 11–20 27 Fig

    Ahn Jw, Brusilovsky P, Grady J, et al (2007) Open user profiles for adaptive news systems: help or harm? In: the 16th international conference on World Wide Web, WWW ’07. ACM, pp 11–20 27 Fig. A2: Distribution of ‘Neutral’ ratings for the statement ‘I was surprised that the system picked this course to recommend to me.’ among four groups based on the inte...

    2007

  4. [4]

    In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Document Engineering 2020

    Alpizar-Chacon I, Sosnovsky S (2020) Order out of chaos: Construction of knowl- edge models from pdf textbooks. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Document Engineering 2020. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, DocEng ’20, pp 1–10, article No.:8

    2020

  5. [5]

    In: The World Wide Web Con- ference

    Alzaidy R, Caragea C, Giles CL (2019) Bi-LSTM-CRF sequence labeling for keyphrase extraction from scholarly documents. In: The World Wide Web Con- ference. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, WWW ’19, p 2551–2557

    2019

  6. [6]

    EasyChair Preprints 28

    Backenk¨ ohler M, Scherzinger F, Singla AK, et al (2018) Data-driven approach towards a personalized curriculum. EasyChair Preprints 28

    2018

  7. [7]

    In: international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, IUI ’2013

    Bakalov F, Meurs MJ, K¨ onig-Ries B, et al (2013) An approach to controlling user models and personalization effects in recommender systems. In: international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, IUI ’2013. ACM Press, pp 49–56

    2013

  8. [8]

    In: International Conference on Computer Supported Education, pp 347–354

    Bakhshinategh B, Spanakis G, Zaiane OR, et al (2017) A course recom- mender system based on graduating attributes. In: International Conference on Computer Supported Education, pp 347–354

    2017

Show all 129 references
  1. [9]

    In: Roll I, McNamara D, Sosnovsky S, et al (eds) Artificial Intelligence in Education

    Barria-Pineda J, Akhuseyinoglu K, ˇZelem- ´Celap S, et al (2021) Explainable recommendations in a personalized programming practice system. In: Roll I, McNamara D, Sosnovsky S, et al (eds) Artificial Intelligence in Education. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 64–76

    2021

  2. [10]

    In: Proceedings of COLING 2012

    Bhaskar P, Nongmeikapam K, Bandyopadhyay S (2012) Keyphrase extraction in scientific articles: A supervised approach. In: Proceedings of COLING 2012

    2012

  3. [11]

    pro- motion

    Bilgic M, Mooney R (2005) Explaining recommendations: Satisfaction vs. pro- motion. In: Beyond Personalization 2005, Workshop on the Next Stage of Recommender Systems Research at IUI’05

    2005

  4. [12]

    In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Con- ference on Natural Language Processing

    Bougouin A, Boudin F, Daille B (2013) Topicrank: Graph-based topic ranking for keyphrase extraction. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Con- ference on Natural Language Processing. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing, Nagoya, Japan, pp 543–551

    2013

  5. [13]

    In: Larochelle H, Ranzato M, Hadsell R, et al (eds) Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol 33

    Brown T, Mann B, Ryder N, et al (2020) Language models are few-shot learn- ers. In: Larochelle H, Ranzato M, Hadsell R, et al (eds) Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol 33. Curran Associates, Inc., pp 1877–1901

    2020

  6. [14]

    In: Tiffany Barnes MFMin Chi (ed) Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Educational Data Mining

    Bydˇ zovsk´ a H (2016) Course enrollment recommender system. In: Tiffany Barnes MFMin Chi (ed) Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Educational Data Mining. International Educational Data Mining Society, Raleigh, NC, USA, pp 312–317

    2016

  7. [15]

    Harvard University Press

    Chambliss DF, Takacs CG (2014) How college works. Harvard University Press

    2014

  8. [16]

    In: Proceedings of the Fifth Annual ACM Conference on Learning at Scale

    Chaturapruek S, Dee TS, Johari R, et al (2018) How a data-driven course plan- ning tool affects college students’ gpa: Evidence from two field experiments. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Annual ACM Conference on Learning at Scale. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, N...

    2018

  9. [17]

    AERA Open 7:2332858421991148

    Chaturapruek S, Dalberg T, Thompson ME, et al (2021) Studying undergradu- ate course consideration at scale. AERA Open 7:2332858421991148

    2021

  10. [18]

    In: Proceedings of the 14th Linguistic Annotation Workshop

    Chau H, Balaneshin S, Liu K, et al (2020) Understanding the tradeoff between cost and quality of expert annotations for keyphrase extraction. In: Proceedings of the 14th Linguistic Annotation Workshop. Association for Computational 29 Linguistics, Barcelona, Spain, pp 74–86

    2020

  11. [19]

    International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 31:820–846

    Chau H, Labutov I, Thaker K, et al (2021) Automatic concept extraction for domain and student modeling in adaptive textbooks. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 31:820–846

    2021

  12. [20]

    In: Trausan-Matu S, Boyer KE, Crosby M, et al (eds) Intelligent Tutoring Systems

    Conde A, Larra˜ naga M, Arruarte A, et al (2014) Testing language independence in the semiautomatic construction of educational ontologies. In: Trausan-Matu S, Boyer KE, Crosby M, et al (eds) Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 545–550

    2014

  13. [21]

    J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 67(2):380–399

    Conde A, Larra˜ naga M, Arruarte A, et al (2016) Litewi: A combined term extraction and entity linking method for eliciting educational ontologies from textbooks. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 67(2):380–399

    2016

  14. [22]

    In: Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

    Conneau A, Kiela D, Schwenk H, et al (2017) Supervised learning of universal sentence representations from natural language inference data. In: Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, Co...

    2017

  15. [23]

    Devlin J, Chang MW, Lee K, et al (2019) BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirec- tional transformers for language understanding. In: Burstein J, Doran C, Solorio T (eds) Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistic...

    2019

  16. [24]

    In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pp 183–190

    Elbadrawy A, Karypis G (2016) Domain-aware grade prediction and top- n course recommendation. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pp 183–190

    2016

  17. [25]

    In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Educational Data Mining

    Esteban A, G´ omez AZ, Romero C (2018) A Hybrid Multi-Criteria approach using a Genetic Algorithm for Recommending Courses to University Students. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Educational Data Mining. International Educational Data Mining Society

    2018

  18. [26]

    Knowledge-Based Systems 194:105385

    Esteban A, Zafra A, Romero C (2020) Helping university students to choose elective courses by using a hybrid multi-criteria recommendation system with genetic optimization. Knowledge-Based Systems 194:105385. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2019.105385

    2020

  19. [27]

    Computers in Human Behavior 27(1):276–284

    Farzan R, Brusilovsky P (2011) Encouraging user participation in a course rec- ommender system: An impact on user behavior. Computers in Human Behavior 27(1):276–284. Current Research Topics in Cognitive Load Theory

    2011

  20. [28]

    Review of Research in Education 44(1):130–160 30

    Fischer C, Pardos ZA, Baker RS, et al (2020) Mining big data in education: Affordances and challenges. Review of Research in Education 44(1):130–160 30

    2020

  21. [29]

    In: Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

    Florescu C, Caragea C (2017) Positionrank: An unsupervised approach to keyphrase extraction from scholarly documents. In: Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics,...

    2017

  22. [30]

    International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 72(4):367–382

    Gedikli F, Jannach D, Ge M (2014) How should i explain? a comparison of different explanation types for recommender systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 72(4):367–382

    2014

  23. [31]

    In: inter- national conference on Intelligent user interfaces, IUI ’2013

    Glowacka D, Ruotsalo T, Konuyshkova K, et al (2013) Directing exploratory search: Reinforcement learning from user interactions with keywords. In: inter- national conference on Intelligent user interfaces, IUI ’2013. ACM Press, pp 117–127

    2013

  24. [32]

    Sociology of Education 79(1):67–79

    Goldrick-Rab S (2006) Following their every move: An investigation of social- class differences in college pathways. Sociology of Education 79(1):67–79

    2006

  25. [33]

    In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on World Wide Web

    Grineva M, Grinev M, Lizorkin D (2009) Extracting key terms from noisy and multitheme documents. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on World Wide Web. ACM, New York, NY, USA, WWW ’09, pp 661–670

    2009

  26. [34]

    Procedia Computer Science 125:518–524

    Gulzar Z, Leema AA, Deepak G (2018) Pcrs: Personalized course recommender system based on hybrid approach. Procedia Computer Science 125:518–524. The 6th International Conference on Smart Computing and Communications

    2018

  27. [35]

    Data 6(2)

    Guruge DB, Kadel R, Halder SJ (2021) The state of the art in methodologies of course recommender systems—a review of recent research. Data 6(2)

    2021

  28. [36]

    In: Perner P, Imiya A (eds) Machine Learning and Data Mining in Pattern Recognition

    Hammouda KM, Matute DN, Kamel MS (2005) Corephrase: Keyphrase extrac- tion for document clustering. In: Perner P, Imiya A (eds) Machine Learning and Data Mining in Pattern Recognition. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 265–274

    2005

  29. [37]

    In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Recom- mender Systems

    Harman JL, O’Donovan J, Abdelzaher T, et al (2014) Dynamics of human trust in recommender systems. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Recom- mender Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, p 305–308

    2014

  30. [38]

    In: Proceedings of the 2000 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work

    Herlocker JL, Konstan JA, Riedl J (2000) Explaining collaborative filtering recommendations. In: Proceedings of the 2000 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, CSCW ’00, p 241–250

    2000

  31. [39]

    In: Adjunct Publication of the 25th Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization

    Houbraken M, Sun C, Smirnov E, et al (2017) Discovering hidden course require- ments and student competencies from grade data. In: Adjunct Publication of the 25th Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, US...

    2017

  32. [40]

    ArXiv abs/1508.01991

    Huang Z, Xu W, Yu K (2015) Bidirectional lstm-crf models for sequence tag- ging. ArXiv abs/1508.01991. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 12740621

    2015 arXiv

  33. [41]

    In: Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

    Hulth A (2003) Improved automatic keyword extraction given more linguis- tic knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, EMNLP ’03, pp 216–223

    2003

  34. [42]

    IEEE Access 7:5180–5199

    Ibrahim ME, Yang Y, Ndzi DL, et al (2018) Ontology-based personalized course recommendation framework. IEEE Access 7:5180–5199. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2889635

    2018

  35. [43]

    In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Educational Data Mining

    Jiang W, Pardos Z (2020) Evaluating sources of course information and models of representation on a variety of institutional prediction tasks. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Educational Data Mining. International Educational Data Mining Society, pp 115–125

    2020

  36. [44]

    In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge

    Jiang W, Pardos ZA, Wei Q (2019) Goal-based course recommendation. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, LAK19, p 36–45

    2019

  37. [45]

    In: Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces

    Knijnenburg BP, Kobsa A (2013) Helping users with information disclosure decisions: Potential for adaptation. In: Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, IUI ’13, p 407–416

    2013

  38. [46]

    Knijnenburg BP, Willemsen MC (2015) Evaluating Recommender Systems with User Experiments, Springer US, Boston, MA, pp 309–352

    2015

  39. [47]

    In: 6th ACM Conference on Recommender System, pp 43–50

    Knijnenburg BP, Bostandjiev S, O’Donovan J, et al (2012) Inspectability and control in social recommenders. In: 6th ACM Conference on Recommender System, pp 43–50

    2012

  40. [48]

    In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing

    Kotkov D, Konstan JA, Zhao Q, et al (2018) Investigating serendipity in rec- ommender systems based on real user feedback. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, SAC ’18, p 1341–1350

    2018

  41. [49]

    In: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining

    Labutov I, Huang Y, Brusilovsky P, et al (2017) Semi-supervised techniques for mining learning outcomes and prerequisites. In: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, New York, NY, USA, KDD ’17, pp 907–915

    2017

  42. [50]

    In: Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North 32 American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies

    Lample G, Ballesteros M, Subramanian S, et al (2016) Neural architectures for named entity recognition. In: Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North 32 American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. Association for Comput...

    2016

  43. [51]

    In: Kang BH, Bai Q (eds) AI 2016: Advances in Artificial Intelligence

    Le TTN, Nguyen ML, Shimazu A (2016) Unsupervised keyphrase extraction: Introducing new kinds of words to keyphrases. In: Kang BH, Bai Q (eds) AI 2016: Advances in Artificial Intelligence. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 665–671

    2016

  44. [52]

    In: CHI ’12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Li Z, Tinapple D, Sundaram H (2012) Visual planner: Beyond prerequisites, designing an interactive course planner for a 21st century flexible curriculum. In: CHI ’12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, US...

    2012

  45. [53]

    ArXiv arXiv:2308.14963 [cs.IR]

    Lin J, Pradeep R, Teofili T, et al (2023) Vector search with openai embeddings: Lucene is all you need. ArXiv arXiv:2308.14963 [cs.IR]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    In: Proceedings of Human Language Technologies: The 2009 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics

    Liu F, Pennell D, Liu F, et al (2009) Unsupervised approaches for automatic key- word extraction using meeting transcripts. In: Proceedings of Human Language Technologies: The 2009 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics...

    2009

  47. [55]

    Morgan & Claypool, https://doi.org/10.2200/ S00759ED1V01Y201702DMK013

    Liu J, Shang J, Han J (2017) Phrase Mining from Massive Text and Its Applications. Morgan & Claypool, https://doi.org/10.2200/ S00759ED1V01Y201702DMK013

    2017

  48. [56]

    In: 32nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2018

    Liu L, Shang J, Ren X, et al (2018) Empower sequence labeling with task-aware neural language model. In: 32nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2018. AAAI Press, pp 5253–5260

    2018

  49. [57]

    In: Companion Proceedings 10th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge

    Ma B, Lu M, Taniguchi Y, et al (2020) Exploring the design space for explain- able course recommendation systems in university environments. In: Companion Proceedings 10th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge

    2020

  50. [58]

    In: Educational Data Mining, pp 460–466

    Ma B, Taniguchi Y, Konomi S (2020) Course recommendation for university environment. In: Educational Data Mining, pp 460–466

    2020

  51. [59]

    In: Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

    Ma X, Hovy E (2016) End-to-end sequence labeling via bi-directional LSTM- CNNs-CRF. In: Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computa- tional Linguistics, Berlin, Germany, pp 1064–1074

    2016

  52. [60]

    Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, KDD ’23, p 4605–4616 33

    Mahapatra D, Dong C, Chen Y, et al (2023) Multi-label learning to rank through multi-objective optimization. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, KDD ’23, p 4605–4616 33

    2023

  53. [61]

    User modeling and user-adapted interaction p 1—43

    Mauro N, Hu ZF, Ardissono L (2022) Justification of recommender systems results: a service-based approach. User modeling and user-adapted interaction p 1—43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-022-09345-8

    2022 doi

  54. [62]

    In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

    McCann B, Bradbury J, Xiong C, et al (2017) Learned in translation: Contex- tualized word vectors. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA, NIPS’17, p 6297–6308

    2017

  55. [63]

    In: Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Volume 3 - Volume 3

    Medelyan O, Frank E, Witten IH (2009) Human-competitive tagging using auto- matic keyphrase extraction. In: Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Volume 3 - Volume 3. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, ...

    2009

  56. [64]

    In: Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

    Meng R, Zhao S, Han S, et al (2017) Deep keyphrase generation. In: Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, Vancouver, Canada, pp 582–592

    2017

  57. [65]

    ArXiv arXiv:2302.07842 [cs.CL]

    Mialon G, Dess ` ı R, Lomeli M, et al (2023) Augmented language models: a survey. ArXiv arXiv:2302.07842 [cs.CL]

    2023 arXiv

  58. [66]

    In: Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Barcelona, Spain

    Mihalcea R, Tarau P (2004) TextRank: Bringing order into text. In: Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Barcelona, Spain

    2004

  59. [67]

    In: Educational Data Mining

    Morsomme R, Alferez SV (2019) Content-based course recommender system for liberal arts education. In: Educational Data Mining

    2019

  60. [68]

    ArXiv abs/1904.11798

    Morsy S, Karypis G (2019) Will this course increase or decrease your gpa? towards grade-aware course recommendation. ArXiv abs/1904.11798

    2019 arXiv

  61. [69]

    User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 31:629–673

    Musto C, de Gemmis M, Lops P, et al (2020) Generating post hoc review-based natural language justifications for recommender systems. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 31:629–673

    2020

  62. [70]

    In: 2018 International Conference on Advanced Science and Engineering (ICOASE), pp 1–6, https://doi.org/10

    Neamah AA, El-Ameer AS (2018) Design and evaluation of a course recom- mender system using content-based approach. In: 2018 International Conference on Advanced Science and Engineering (ICOASE), pp 1–6, https://doi.org/10. 1109/ICOASE.2018.8548789

    2018

  63. [71]

    In: Goh DHL, Cao TH, Sølvberg IT, et al (eds) Asian Digital Libraries

    Nguyen TD, Kan MY (2007) Keyphrase extraction in scientific publications. In: Goh DHL, Cao TH, Sølvberg IT, et al (eds) Asian Digital Libraries. Looking Back 10 Years and Forging New Frontiers. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 317–326 34

    2007

  64. [72]

    In: Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP- IJCNLP)

    Ni J, Li J, McAuley J (2019) Justifying recommendatkaty2018ions using distantly-labeled reviews and fine-grained aspects. In: Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language P...

    2019

  65. [73]

    User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 27(3-5):393–444

    Nunes I, Jannach D (2017) A systematic review and taxonomy of explanations in decision support and recommender systems. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 27(3-5):393–444

    2017

  66. [74]

    Internet High Educ 29:49–62

    Ognjanovic I, Gasevic D, Dawson S (2016) Using institutional data to predict student course selections in higher education. Internet High Educ 29:49–62

    2016

  67. [75]

    In: Koyejo S, Mohamed S, Agarwal A, et al (eds) Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol 35

    Ouyang L, Wu J, Jiang X, et al (2022) Training language models to fol- low instructions with human feedback. In: Koyejo S, Mohamed S, Agarwal A, et al (eds) Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol 35. Curran Associates, Inc., pp 27730–27744

    2022

  68. [76]

    ACM Trans Inf Syst 29(4)

    Parameswaran A, Venetis P, Garcia-Molina H (2011) Recommendation systems with complex constraints: A course recommendation perspective. ACM Trans Inf Syst 29(4)

    2011

  69. [77]

    In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge, pp 350–359

    Pardos ZA, Jiang W (2020) Designing for serendipity in a university course recommendation system. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge, pp 350–359

    2020

  70. [78]

    In: Proceedings of the Sixth (2019) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale

    Pardos ZA, Chau H, Zhao H (2019) Data-assistive course-to-course articulation using machine translation. In: Proceedings of the Sixth (2019) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, L@S ’19, article No.: 22

    2019

  71. [79]

    User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction pp 1–39

    Pardos ZA, Fan Z, Jiang W (2019) Connectionist recommendation in the wild: on the utility and scrutability of neural networks for personalized course guidance. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction pp 1–39

    2019

  72. [80]

    In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics

    Park S, Caragea C (2020) Scientific keyphrase identification and classification by pre-trained language models intermediate task transfer learning. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Interna- tional Committee on Computational Lin...

    2020

  73. [81]

    International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 78:43–67

    Parra D, Brusilovsky P (2015) User-controllable personalization: A case study with setfusion. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 78:43–67

    2015

  74. [82]

    In: Proceedings of the 55th Annual 35 Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

    Peters ME, Ammar W, Bhagavatula C, et al (2017) Semi-supervised sequence tagging with bidirectional language models. In: Proceedings of the 55th Annual 35 Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistic...

    2017

  75. [83]

    In: Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers)

    Peters ME, Neumann M, Iyyer M, et al (2018) Deep contextualized word rep- resentations. In: Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers). Association for C...

    2018

  76. [84]

    In: Educational Data Mining, pp 396–401

    Polyzou A, Nikolakopoulos AN, Karypis G (2019) Scholars walk: A markov chain framework for course recommendation. In: Educational Data Mining, pp 396–401

    2019

  77. [85]

    In: Proceedings of the Fifth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems

    Pu P, Chen L, Hu R (2011) A user-centric evaluation framework for recom- mender systems. In: Proceedings of the Fifth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, RecSys ’11, p 157–164

    2011

  78. [86]

    NPJ digital medicine 4(1):86

    Rasmy L, Xiang Y, Xie Z, et al (2021) Med-bert: pretrained contextualized embeddings on large-scale structured electronic health records for disease predic- tion. NPJ digital medicine 4(1):86. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-021-00455-y

    2021 doi

  79. [87]

    In: Dua S, Sahni S, Goyal DP (eds) Information Intelligence, Systems, Technology and Management

    Ray S, Sharma A (2011) A collaborative filtering based approach for recom- mending elective courses. In: Dua S, Sahni S, Goyal DP (eds) Information Intelligence, Systems, Technology and Management. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 330–339

    2011

  80. [88]

    In: Berry MW, Kogan J (eds) Text Mining: Applications and Theory

    Rose S, Engel D, Cramer N, et al (2010) Automatic keyword extraction from individual documents. In: Berry MW, Kogan J (eds) Text Mining: Applications and Theory. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, pp 1–20

    2010

  81. [89]

    In: Jose JM, Yilmaz E, Magalh˜ aes J, et al (eds) Advances in Information Retrieval

    Sahrawat D, Mahata D, Zhang H, et al (2020) Keyphrase extraction as sequence labeling using contextualized embeddings. In: Jose JM, Yilmaz E, Magalh˜ aes J, et al (eds) Advances in Information Retrieval. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 328–335

    2020

  82. [90]

    CoRR abs/1910.01108

    Sanh V, Debut L, Chaumond J, et al (2019) Distilbert, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. CoRR abs/1910.01108. 1910.01108

    2019 arXiv

  83. [91]

    In: 23rd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces

    Sato M, Ahsan B, Nagatani K, et al (2018) Explaining recommendations using contexts. In: 23rd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM, pp 659–664

    2018

  84. [92]

    In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce

    Schafer JB, Konstan J, Riedl J (1999) Recommender systems in e-commerce. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, EC ’99, p 158–166 36

    1999

  85. [93]

    Routledge, pp 102–123

    Scott-Clayton J (2015) The shapeless river: Does a lack of struc- ture inhibit stu- dents’ progress at community colleges? In: Castleman BL, Schwartz S, Baum S (eds) Decision-making for student success: Behavioral insights to improve college access and persistence. Routledge, ...

    2015

  86. [94]

    Int J Human-Computer Studies 60:17–63

    Shamsfard M, Barforoush AA (2004) Learning ontologies from natural language texts. Int J Human-Computer Studies 60:17–63

    2004

  87. [95]

    In: Recommender systems handbook

    Shani G, Gunawardana A (2011) Evaluating recommendation systems. In: Recommender systems handbook. Springer, p 257–297

    2011

  88. [96]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 35(17):14920–14929

    Shao E, Guo S, Pardos ZA (2021) Degree planning with plan-bert: Multi- semester recommendation using future courses of interest. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 35(17):14920–14929

    2021

  89. [97]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 36(10):11303– 11311

    Shen X, Wang Y, Meng R, et al (2022) Unsupervised deep keyphrase generation. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 36(10):11303– 11311

    2022

  90. [98]

    In: CHI ’02 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Sinha R, Swearingen K (2002) The role of transparency in recommender systems. In: CHI ’02 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, CHI EA ’02, p 830–831

    2002

  91. [99]

    In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Manage- ment

    Sun F, Liu J, Wu J, et al (2019) Bert4rec: Sequential recommendation with bidirectional encoder representations from transformer. In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Manage- ment. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, ...

    2019

  92. [100]

    In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web

    Svore KM, Volkovs MN, Burges CJ (2011) Learning to rank with multiple objec- tive functions. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, WWW ’11, p 367–376

    2011

  93. [101]

    In: LAK22: 12th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference

    Takami K, Dai Y, Flanagan B, et al (2022) Educational explainable recom- mender usage and its effectiveness in high school summer vacation assignment. In: LAK22: 12th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, ...

    2022

  94. [102]

    In: Proceedings of First Workshop on Intelligent Textbooks at 20th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED 2019)

    Thaker K, Brusilovsky P, He D (2019) Student modeling with automatic knowl- edge component extraction for adaptive textbooks. In: Proceedings of First Workshop on Intelligent Textbooks at 20th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED 2019)

    2019

  95. [103]

    Tintarev N, Masthoff J (2007) A survey of explanations in recommender systems. In: 3rd International Workshop on Web Personalisation, Recommender Systems 37 and Intelligent User Interfaces at IEEE 23rd International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE 2007), pp 801–810

    2007

  96. [104]

    In: Recommender systems handbook

    Tintarev N, Masthoff J (2015) Explaining recommendations: Design and evalu- ation. In: Recommender systems handbook. Springer, p 353–382

    2015

  97. [105]

    In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces

    Vig J, Sen S, Riedl J (2009) Tagsplanations: Explaining recommendations using tags. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, IUI ’09, p 47–56

    2009

  98. [106]

    In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, ACM, pp 47–56

    Vig J, Sen S, Riedl J (2009) Tagsplanations: explaining recommendations using tags. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, ACM, pp 47–56

    2009

  99. [107]

    User Modeling and User Adapted Interaction 14(201-237)

    Waern A (2004) User involvement in automatic filtering - an experimental study. User Modeling and User Adapted Interaction 14(201-237)

    2004

  100. [108]

    In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2008)

    Wan X, Xiao J (2008) Collabrank: Towards a collaborative approach to single- document keyphrase extraction. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2008). Coling 2008 Organizing Committee, pp 969–976

    2008

  101. [109]

    Neurocom- puting 312:135–153

    Wang M, Deng W (2018) Deep visual domain adaptation: A survey. Neurocom- puting 312:135–153

    2018

  102. [110]

    Technology knowledge and learning 28:1–22

    Wang M, Chau H, Thaker K, et al (2023) Knowledge annotation for intelligent textbooks. Technology knowledge and learning 28:1–22

    2023

  103. [111]

    In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Symposium on Document Engineering

    Wang S, Liang C, Wu Z, et al (2015) Concept hierarchy extraction from text- books. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Symposium on Document Engineering. ACM, New York, NY, USA, DocEng ’15, pp 147–156

    2015

  104. [112]

    Journal of Management Information Systems 23(4):217–246

    Wang W, Benbasat I (2007) Recommendation agents for electronic commerce: Effects of explanation facilities on trusting beliefs. Journal of Management Information Systems 23(4):217–246

    2007

  105. [113]

    arXiv:2304.08085

    Wang X, Zhou W, Zu C, et al (2023) Instructuie: Multi-task instruction tuning for unified information extraction. arXiv:2304.08085

    2023 arXiv

  106. [114]

    In: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)

    Wang Y, Fan Z, Rose C (2020) Incorporating multimodal information in open- domain web keyphrase extraction. In: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, pp 1790–1800

    2020

  107. [115]

    In: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on 38 Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)

    Wang Y, Fan Z, Rose C (2020) Incorporating multimodal information in open- domain web keyphrase extraction. In: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on 38 Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, pp 1790–1800

    2020

  108. [116]

    ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol 11(5)

    Wilson G, Cook DJ (2020) A survey of unsupervised deep domain adaptation. ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol 11(5)

    2020

  109. [117]

    In: Proceedings of the Fourth ACM Conference on Digital Libraries

    Witten IH, Paynter GW, Frank E, et al (1999) Kea: Practical automatic keyphrase extraction. In: Proceedings of the Fourth ACM Conference on Digital Libraries. ACM, New York, NY, USA, DL ’99, pp 254–255

    1999

  110. [118]

    In: Penstein Ros´ e C, Mart ´ ınez-Maldonado R, Hoppe HU, et al (eds) Artificial Intelligence in Education

    Wong C (2018) Sequence based course recommender for personalized curriculum planning. In: Penstein Ros´ e C, Mart ´ ınez-Maldonado R, Hoppe HU, et al (eds) Artificial Intelligence in Education. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 531–534

    2018

  111. [119]

    ACM Comput Surv 44(4)

    Wong W, Liu W, Bennamoun M (2012) Ontology learning from text: A look back and into the future. ACM Comput Surv 44(4)

    2012

  112. [120]

    Xiong L, Hu C, Xiong C, et al (2019) Open domain web keyphrase extraction beyond language modeling. In: Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empir- ical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJC...

    2019

  113. [121]

    IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 64(20):5340–5352

    Xu J, Xing T, van der Schaar M (2016) Personalized course sequence recom- mendations. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 64(20):5340–5352. https: //doi.org/10.1109/TSP.2016.2595495

    2016

  114. [122]

    In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on World Wide Web

    Yih Wt, Goodman J, Carvalho VR (2006) Finding advertising keywords on web pages. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on World Wide Web. ACM, New York, NY, USA, WWW ’06, pp 213–222

    2006

  115. [123]

    MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, NIPS’14, p 3320–3328

    Yosinski J, Clune J, Bengio Y, et al (2014) How transferable are features in deep neural networks? In: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems - Volume 2. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, NIPS’14, p 3320–3328

    2014

  116. [124]

    In: Adjunct Proceedings of the 29th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP ’21 Adjunct), p 238–245

    Yu R, Pardos ZA, Chau H, et al (2021) Orienting Students to Course Rec- ommendations Using Three Types of Explanation. In: Adjunct Proceedings of the 29th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP ’21 Adjunct), p 238–245

    2021

  117. [125]

    Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval 14(1):1–101

    Zhang Y, Chen X (2020) Explainable recommendation: A survey and new perspectives. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval 14(1):1–101

    2020

  118. [126]

    In: Proceedings of 39 the 37th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval

    Zhang Y, Lai G, Zhang M, et al (2014) Explicit factor models for explainable recommendation based on phrase-level sentiment analysis. In: Proceedings of 39 the 37th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. Association for Computi...

    2014

  119. [127]

    In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization

    Zhou G, Yang X, Azizsoltani H, et al (2020) Improving student-system inter- action through data-driven explanations of hierarchical reinforcement learning induced pedagogical policies. In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization....

    2020

  120. [128]

    ArXiv arXiv:2308.03279 [cs.CL]

    Zhou W, Zhang S, Gu Y, et al (2023) Universalner: Targeted distilla- tion from large language models for open named entity recognition. ArXiv arXiv:2308.03279 [cs.CL]

    2023 arXiv

  121. [129]

    In: Duval E, Klamma R, Wolpers M (eds) Creating New Learning Experiences on a Global Scale

    Zouaq A, Nkambou R, Frasson C (2007) Building domain ontologies from text for educational purposes. In: Duval E, Klamma R, Wolpers M (eds) Creating New Learning Experiences on a Global Scale. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 393–407 40

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.