Building bridges for web query classification
By Dou Shen, Qiang Yang, Zheng Chen. 2006
319 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Information Systems
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Artificial Intelligence
In Information Systems
Citations in the corpus
- Understanding the Semantic Structure of Noun Phrase Queries (2010, background): “As mentioned in the introduction, previous works on query intent understanding have largely focused on classification, i.e. , automatically mapping queries into semantic classes (Shen et al., 2006; Li et al., 2008b; Arguello et al., 2009).”
- Learning query intent from regularized click graphs (2008, methodology): “[16] used search engine results as features, including pages, snippets and titles, and built classifiers based on a document taxonomy; then classifications in the document taxonomy were mapped to those in the target taxonomy.”
- Tempura: Query Analysis with Structural Templates (2020, background): “Meanwhile, without isolating features, researchers have also tried to organize the dataset by automatically classifying [36, 3] or clustering [1] similar queries together.”
- Mining User Intents in Twitter: A Semi-Supervised Approach to Inferring Intent Categories for Tweets (2015, background): “2009; Kang and Kim 2003); and the other type is classifying queries according to the user intent, such as “jobs” or “travel” (Hu et al. 2009; Shen et al. 2006; Beitzel et al. 2007; Li, Wang, and Acero 2008).”
- Named entity recognition in query (2009, background): “Query classification falls into two groups: (1) classification according to search intent, such as informational, navigational or transactional [7, 21, 16]; (2) classification according to semantics of query, such as “Shopping” or “Living” [24, 1].”