When Opinion Request Meets Majority Search: Avoiding Fraud in On-line Review Systems

机译：当观点请求符合大多数搜索时：在线审查系统中避免欺诈

获取原文

页面导航

摘要
著录项
相似文献
相关主题

摘要

On-line review systems have been proved to be sensitive to fraud and have shown some shortcomings due to their reliance on using numerical ratings as reviews. For that reason, and supported by recent work on the field, we aim to address the problem of fraud in this type of systems, by designing a mechanism based on pairwise comparisons - encapsulated as opinion polls - coupled with an incentive policy attempting to foster the collection of majority opinions over individual experiences.

机译：在线审查系统已被证明对欺诈敏感，并且由于他们依赖于使用数值评级而导致一些缺点。出于这个原因，并通过最近在该领域的工作得到支持，我们的目标是通过设计基于成对比较的机制来解决这种系统的欺诈问题 - 封装为民意调查 - 与试图培养的激励政策相结合对个人经验的多数意见集合。

著录项

来源
《International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems》|2015年||共2页
会议地点
作者
Roberto Centeno; Ramon Hermoso;
展开▼
作者单位

展开▼
会议组织
原文格式 PDF
正文语种
中图分类 TP18-53;
关键词
On-line review systems; Fraud; Opinions; Incentives;

机译：在线审查系统;欺诈;意见;激励措施;

相似文献

外文文献
中文文献
专利

1. The irrelevance to truth of majority opinion and authority. A perspective on peer review systems. [J] . Journal of the National Medical Association . 1973,第4期

机译：与多数意见和权威的真理无关。同行评审系统的观点。
2. Estimating global opinions by keeping users from fraud in online review systems [J] . Centeno Roberto, Hermoso Ramon Knowledge and information systems . 2018,第2期

机译：通过将用户从在线审查系统中保留用户来估算全球意见
3. Better being third than second in a search for a majority opinion [J] . Dietrich Stauffer Advances in complex systems . 2002,第1期

机译：在寻求多数意见的过程中，胜过第三而不是第二
4. When Opinion Request Meets Majority Search: Avoiding Fraud in On-line Review Systems [C] . Roberto Centeno, Ramon Hermoso International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems . 2015

机译：当观点请求符合大多数搜索时：在线审查系统中避免欺诈
5. A systematic evaluation of search methods, search reporting, and selection methods of reviews of physical activity interventions to prevent obesity. [D] . Anderson, Margaret J. 2009

机译：对预防肥胖的身体活动干预措施的搜索方法，搜索报告和选择评论的方法进行系统评估。
6. The irrelevance to truth of majority opinion and authority. A perspective on peer review systems. [O] . 1973

机译：与多数意见和权威的真理无关。同行评审系统的观点。
7. ACC/AHA/ASNC Guidelines for the Clinical Use of Cardiac Radionuclide Imaging—Executive Summary A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/ASNC Committee to Revise the 1995 Guidelines for the Clinical Use of Cardiac Radionuclide Imaging)44The ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines makes every effort to avoid any actual or potential conflicts of interest that might arise as a result of an outside relationship or personal interest of a member of the writing panel. Specifically, all members of the writing panel are asked to provide disclosure statements of all such relationships that might be perceived as real or potential conflicts of interest. These statements are reviewed by the parent task force, reported orally to all members of the writing panel at the first meeting, and updated as changes occur.55This document was approved by the American College of Cardiology Foundation Board of Trustees in July, 2003, the American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee in July, 2003, and the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology Board of Directors in July, 2003.66When citing this document, the American College of Cardiology Foundation, the American Heart Association, and the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology request that the following citation format be used: Klocke FJ, Baird MG, Bateman TM, Berman DS, Carabello BA, Cerqueira MD, DeMaria AN, Kennedy JW, Lorell BH, Messer JV, O’Gara PT, Russell RO Jr, St. John Sutton MG, Udelson JE, Verani MS, Williams KA. ACC/AHA/ASNC guidelines for the clinical use of cardiac radionuclide imaging—executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/ASNC Committee to Revise the 1995 Guidelines for the Clinical Use of Radionuclide Imaging). J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;42:1318–33.77(J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;42:1318–33)88©2003 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation and the American Heart Association, Inc. [O] . Klocke Francis J, Baird Michael G, Lorell Beverly H, 2003

机译：ACC / AHA / ASNC心脏放射性核素成像临床使用指南-执行摘要美国心脏病学会/美国心脏协会实践指南工作组的报告（ACC / AHA / ASNC委员会，对1995年临床使用指南进行修订ACC / AHA实践指导小组）竭尽全力避免由于写作小组成员的外部关系或个人利益而引起的任何实际或潜在的利益冲突。具体来说，要求写作小组的所有成员提供所有可能被视为实际或潜在利益冲突的关系的披露声明。这些声明由上级工作组审查，在第一次会议上向书面小组的所有成员口头报告，并在发生变化时进行更新。55本文件于2003年7月获得美国心脏病学会基金会董事会的批准。 2003年7月，美国心脏协会科学咨询与协调委员会，2003年7月，美国核心脏病学会理事会。66引用该文件时，美国心脏病学会基金会，美国心脏协会和美国核学会心脏病学要求使用以下引用格式：Klocke FJ，Baird MG，Bateman TM，Berman DS，Carabello BA，Cerqueira MD，DeMaria AN，Kennedy JW，Lorell BH，Messer JV，O'Gara PT，Russell RO Jr，St John Sutton MG，Udelson JE，Verani MS，Williams KA。 ACC / AHA / ASNC心脏放射性核素成像临床使用指南-执行摘要：美国心脏病学会/美国心脏协会实践小组工作指南（ACC / AHA / ASNC委员会，修订1995年临床指南）的报告使用放射性核素成像）。 J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 42：1318–33.77（J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 42：1318–33）88©2003美国心脏病学会基金会和美国心脏协会版权所有。

When Opinion Request Meets Majority Search: Avoiding Fraud in On-line Review Systems

摘要

著录项

相似文献

相关主题

期刊订阅