Students & PostDocs: We have open positions in Tokyo, Copenhagen, and Konstanz (2-24 months)

Update 2016-01-12: The salary in Tokyo would be around 1.600 US$ per month, not 1.400.

2015 has been a rather quiet year for Docear, but 2016 will be different. We have lots of ideas for new projects, and even better – we have funding to pay at least 1 Master or PhD student, to […]

Wanted: Participants for a User Study about Docear’s Recommender System

We kindly ask you to participate in a brief study about Docear’s recommender system. Your participation will help us to improve the recommender system, and to secure long-term funding for the development of Docear in general! If you are willing to invest 15 minutes of your time, then please continue reading.

[…]

Comprehensive Comparison of Reference Managers: Mendeley vs. Zotero vs. Docear

Which one is the best reference management software? That’s a question any student or researcher should think about quite carefully, because choosing the best reference manager may save lots of time and increase the quality of your work significantly. So, which reference manager is best? Zotero? Mendeley? Docear? …? The answer is: “It depends”, because […]

What makes a bad reference manager?

Update 2013-11-11: For some statistical data read On the popularity of reference managers, and their rise and fall Update 2014-01-15: For a detailed review of Docear and other tools, read Comprehensive Comparison of Reference Managers: Mendeley vs. Zotero vs. Docear

At time of writing these lines, there are 31 reference management tools listed on Wikipedia […]

New paper: “A Comparative Analysis of Offline and Online Evaluations and Discussion of Research Paper Recommender System Evaluation”

Yesterday, we published a pre-print on the shortcomings of current research paper recommender system evaluations. One of the findings was that results of offline and online experiments sometimes contradict each other. We did a more detailed analysis on this issue and wrote a new paper about it. More specifically, we conducted a comprehensive evaluation of […]

Which one is the best reference management software?

Update 2013-10-14: For a more serious analysis read What makes a bad reference manager? Update 2013-11-11: For some statistical data read On the popularity of reference managers, and their rise and fall Update 2014-01-15: For a detailed review, read Comprehensive Comparison of Reference Managers: Mendeley vs. Zotero vs. Docear

<irony>Have you ever wondered what the […]

Three new research papers (for TPDL’13) about user demographics and recommender evaluations, sponsored recommendations, and recommender persistance

After three demo-papers were accepted for JCDL 2013, we just received notice that another three posters were accepted for presentation at TPDL 2013 on Malta in September 2013. I think the papers are quite interesting (well, that’s probably no surprise since I wrote them ;-)). They cover some quite novel aspects of recommender systems relating […]

Evaluations in Information Retrieval: Click Through Rate (CTR) vs. Mean Absolute Error (MAE) vs. (Root) Mean Squared Error (MSE / RMSE) vs. Precision

As you may know, Docear offers literature recommendations and as you may know further, it’s part of my PhD to find out how to make these recommendations as good as possible. To accomplish this I need to know what a ‘good’ recommendation is. So far we have been using Click Through Rates (CTR) to evaluate […]
https://docear.com/tag/evaluation/
docear.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2020-50
90429
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:YRGH4S7KISOV27FTNWWX2GLAPFD4HPLZ
<urn:uuid:8e303d3b-e7b0-4d10-932a-b15450b7c673>
2020-12-02T13:19:44Z
5.45.109.116
application/xhtml+xml
sha1:W5HOIPOPFBMBRFY3PLMIDO3RTEKEP56M
<urn:uuid:df6812f8-c6b8-4b44-b2b3-7d4b94f615a7>
https://docear.com/tag/evaluation/
response
<urn:uuid:ea415c00-5082-4f49-ae55-6d52c4d952df>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-50
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for November/December 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-75.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.17 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/