http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
소셜 네트워크 환경에서 사용자 행위를 고려한 콘텐츠 추천 기법
고건식(Geonsik Ko),김병훈(Byounghoon Kim),김대윤(Daeyun Kim),최민웅(Minwoong Choi),임종태(Jongtae Lim),복경수(Kyoungsoo Bok),유재수(Jaesoo Yoo) 한국콘텐츠학회 2017 한국콘텐츠학회논문지 Vol.17 No.2
스마트폰의 보급과 온라인 소셜 네트워크 서비스의 발전으로 사용자들은 많은 콘텐츠를 생산하거나 서로 공유한다. 이로 인해 사용자는 자신이 원하지 않는 콘텐츠를 받아보거나 소비함으로써 많은 시간을 소요하게 된다. 이와 같은 문제를 해결하기 위해 소셜 네트워크 사용자에게 적합한 콘텐츠를 추천하기 위한 기법들이 활발하게 연구되고 있다. 본 논문에서는 온라인 소셜 네트워크 사용자에게 협업 필터링을 이용하여 적합한 콘텐츠를 추천하는 기법을 제안한다. 제안하는 기법은 추천의 정확성을 낮추는 사용자의 데이터를 제거하기 위해서 사용자 신뢰도를 고려한다. 사용자의 신뢰도는 온라인 소셜 네트워크의 사용자 행위를 분석해서 도출한다. 사용자의 신뢰도를 다양한 관점에서 평가하기 위해서 기존기법에서 사용하지 않았던 사용자 행위들을 수집해서 사용한다. 다양한 성능평가를 통해 제안하는 기법이 기존 기법보다 우수함을 보인다. With the development of smartphones and online social networks, users produce a lot of contents and share them with each other. Therefore, users spend time by viewing or receiving the contents they do not want. In order to solve such problems, schemes for recommending useful contents have been actively studied. In this paper, we propose a contents recommendation scheme using collaborative filtering for users on online social networks. The proposed scheme consider a user trust in order to remove user data that lower the accuracy of recommendation. The user trust is derived by analyzing the user activity of online social network. For evaluating the user trust from various points of view, we collect user activities that have not been used in conventional techniques. It is shown through performance evaluation that the proposed scheme outperforms the existing scheme.
고건호(Ko, Gunho) 한신대학교 종교와문화연구소(구 한신인문학연구소) 2010 종교문화연구 Vol.- No.14
This article re-examines what William E. Paden calls “new comparativism.” According to him, new comparativism is based on a thoughtful critique of the traditional comparative methods. Having encapsulated the modem history of the study of religion in terms of strategy of comparison, he says comparative religion has been trapped into “the magic of comparison.” Traditional comparative methods have lived off three sorts of magic, namely Christian apologetics, rationalistic deconstruction of faith, and de-contextualized universalism. These sorts of magic have been oriented ideologically and unscientifically. Based on such reflections, Paden concludes that traditional comparative methods are deeply rooted in “comparison as ideology,” not in “comparison as method.” What matters is that such magic of comparison has been and remains to be problematic. New comparativism as Paden proposes is an attempt to go beyond the boundary of the magic of traditional comparative method. He formulates it as follows: First, we should advance towards “religion as a whole” without making a stop at “religions as elements;” Second, we need comparative perspective distilled from historical knowledge; Third, the scope of comparative data and analysis should be located within contexts, such as periods, locales, types of religion, etc., by which the religious manifestations are conditioned; Fourth, we should focus on analogy rather than identity, because similarities as derived from comparativistic endeavors are different from identities; Fifth, we should listen to the criticism that comparativistic projects may lose sight of the richness of cultural diversity; Lastly, the purpose of comparison is not comparison itself, and the comparison process should entail examination of historical particulars with regard to overarching themes. Not only does Paden emphasize the importance of historical approaches to “religions,” but also he thinks highly of the necessity to consider “religion as a whole.” To him, comparison is not a problem of choice. What matters is how to find a rigorous and appropriate method of comparison. For this end, radical reflections on the nature of the study of religion are required. Paden’s “new comparativism” is actually not new at all, but, nevertheless, considering the present platitude in the study of religion, it still functions like something new.