MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392110993 · doi:10.3390/modelling5010016

Intent Identification by Semantically Analyzing the Search Query

2024· article· en· W4392110993 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueModelling—International Open Access Journal of Modelling in Engineering Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeb search queryComputer scienceIdentification (biology)Information retrievalQuery expansionWeb query classificationQuery optimizationSearch engine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding and analyzing the search intent of a user semantically based on their input query has emerged as an intriguing challenge in recent years. It suffers from small-scale human-labeled training data that produce a very poor hypothesis of rare words. The majority of data portals employ keyword-driven search functionality to explore content within their repositories. However, the keyword-based search cannot identify the users’ search intent accurately. Integrating a query-understandable framework into keyword search engines has the potential to enhance their performance, bridging the gap in interpreting the user’s search intent more effectively. In this study, we have proposed a novel approach that focuses on spatial and temporal information, phrase detection, and semantic similarity recognition to detect the user’s intent from the search query. We have used the n-gram probabilistic language model for phrase detection. Furthermore, we propose a probability-aware gated mechanism for RoBERTa (Robustly Optimized Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers Approach) embeddings to semantically detect the user’s intent. We analyze and compare the performance of the proposed scheme with the existing state-of-the-art schemes. Furthermore, a detailed case study has been conducted to validate the model’s proficiency in semantic analysis, emphasizing its adaptability and potential for real-world applications where nuanced intent understanding is crucial. The experimental result demonstrates that our proposed system can significantly improve the accuracy for detecting the users’ search intent as well as the quality of classification during search.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0120.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it