• Aucun résultat trouvé

Preface - Doctoral Consortium Posters

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Partager "Preface - Doctoral Consortium Posters"

Copied!
1
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

UMAP 2016 Doctoral Consortium Posters Preface

Maria Bielikova

Faculty if Informatics and Information Technologies Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava

maria.bielikova@stuba.sk

Vania Dimitrova

School of Computing, University of Leeds United Kingdom

V.G.Dimitrova@leeds.ac.uk

The UMAP 2016 Conference, following a tradition started in 1994, included a Doctoral Consortium (DC) Session. Doctoral Consortium provides an opportunity for doctoral students to explore and develop their research interests under the guidance of a panel of distinguished research faculty. Doctoral students have been invited to apply to present their research to scholars and researchers in the field who provide constructive feedback and advice.

The doctoral consortium is implemented as a student mentoring program that introduces students to senior researchers in the relevant fields.

Doctoral students have been asked to document in a brief submission their research project. Each DC submission was encouraged to consider the following: identification of related (state of the art) work, indication of potential innovation, application or contribution for which the work is aimed. In addition, as appropriate for the PhD project, the submissions could consider:

indication of data to be used for experimentation, indication of implementation approach, indication of evaluation criteria and experimental design.

The UMAP 2016 Doctoral Consortium attracted 18 submissions.

Each submission was reviewed by three members of the UMAP 2016 DC program committee.

 9 good quality submissions were selected to be presented at a Doctoral Consortium Session as part of the conference.

These submissions, which were included in the main conference proceedings.

 7 promising, but less well-developed submissions have been selected for presentation at a poster session. These DC submissions are included in these UMAP2016 Extended proceedings.

To facilitate cross-fertilization of research ideas and encourage cross-disciplinary connections, the two collocated conferences UMAP2016 and Hypertext 2016 had a joint Doctoral Consortium session. The participants presented their work with substantial time allowed for feedback and discussion.

UMAP2016 DC Program Committee

Liliana Ardissono, University of Torino, Italy

Ryan Baker, Teachers College, Columbia University, USA Shlomo Berkovsky, CSIRO, Australia

Peter Brusilovsky, University of Pittsburgh, USA Robin Burke, DePaul University, USA

Federica Cena, University of Torino, Italy

Li Chen, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong David Chin, University of Hawaii, USA

Alexandra Cristea, University of Warwick, UK Marco De Gemmis, University of Bari, Italy

Pasquale De Meo, VU University, Amsterdam, Netherlands Fabio Gasparetti, ROMA TRE University, Italy

Cristina Gena, University of Torino, Italy

Panagiotis Germanakos, University of Cyprus, Cyprus Eelco Herder, L3S Research Center, Germany Geert-Jan Houben, TU Delft, Netherlands Tsvi Kuflik, The University of Haifa, Israel

Roger Nkambou, Université du Québec À Montréal, Canada Francesco Ricci, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy Olga C. Santos, aDeNu Research Group (UNED), Spain Ben Steichen, Santa Clara University, USA

Marko Tkalcic, Free University of Bolzano, Italy Christoph Trattner, KMI, TU-Graz, Austria Massimo Zancanaro, FBK-cit, Italy

Ingrid Zukerman, Monash University, Australia

UMAP2016 DC Chairs

Maria Bielikova, Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Slovakia

Vania Dimitrova, University of Leeds, United Kingdom

LIST OF UMAP 2016 DC POSTER PAPERS

 Ifeoma Adaji: Improving E-Commerce User Experience with Data-Driven Personalized Persuasion & Social Network Analysis supervised by Julita Vassileva

 David Alfter: Learning the Learner: User Modeling in Intelligent Computer Assisted Language Learning Systems supervised by Lars Borin and Elena Volodina

 Diego Dermeval: Intelligent Authoring of Gamified Intelligent Tutoring Systems supervised by Ig Ibert Bittencourt

 Christian Grévisse: Adaptive Literacy-Aware Integration of Learning Material supervised by Steffen Rothkugel

 Patrik Hlavac: Impact of characteristics of individuals on evaluating the quantitative studies supervised by Jakub Šimko and Mária Bieliková

 Kwan Hui Lim: Personalized Recommendation of Travel Itineraries based on Tourist Interests and Preferences supervised by Shanika Karunasekera, Christopher Leckie and Jeffrey Chan

 Jonathas Magalhães: A Bayesian User-Controllable Recommender System supervised by Evandro Costa

 Somayeh Fatahi: A computational model of emotion and personality in e-learning environments supervised by Hadi Moradi

Références

Documents relatifs

We experimented with the combination of content and title runs, using standard combination methods as introduced by Fox and Shaw [1]: combMAX (take the maximal similarity score of

In order to make it possible for our answer re-ranking module (described in section 6) to rank answers from different streams, we took advantage of answer patterns from

Given a topic (and associated article) in one language, identify relevant snippets on the topic from other articles in the same language or even in other languages.. In the context

Language restricted Since we know the language of the topic in each of the translations, and the intention of the translated topic is to retrieve pages in that language, we may

When we examined the assessments of the answers to the three different question types, we noticed that the proportion of correct answers was the same for definition questions (45%)

For both English and Portuguese we used a similar set of indexes as for the monolingual runs described earlier (Words, Stems, 4-Grams, 4-Grams+start/end, 4-Grams+words); for all

Four streams generate candidate answers from the Dutch CLEF corpus: Lookup, Pattern Match, Ngrams, and Tequesta.. The Table Lookup stream uses specialized knowledge bases constructed

In effect, we conducted three sets of experiments: (i) on the four language small multilingual set (English, French, German, and Spanish), (ii) on the six languages for which we have