Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining 2016
DOI: 10.1145/2939672.2939677
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ranking Relevance in Yahoo Search

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
48
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
5

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 109 publications
(49 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
48
0
Order By: Relevance
“…One of the earliest efforts in hate speech detection can be attributed to (Spertus, 1997) who had presented a decision tree based text classifier for web pages with a 88.2 % accuracy. Contemporary works on Yahoo news pages were done (Sood et al, 2012), and later taken up by (Yin et al, 2016). (Xiang et al, 2012) detected offensive tweets using logistic regression over a tweet dataset with the help of a dictionary of 339 offensive words.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One of the earliest efforts in hate speech detection can be attributed to (Spertus, 1997) who had presented a decision tree based text classifier for web pages with a 88.2 % accuracy. Contemporary works on Yahoo news pages were done (Sood et al, 2012), and later taken up by (Yin et al, 2016). (Xiang et al, 2012) detected offensive tweets using logistic regression over a tweet dataset with the help of a dictionary of 339 offensive words.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One of the earliest efforts in hate speech detection can be attributed to Spertus (1997) who had presented a decision tree based text classifier for web pages with a remarkable 88.2 % accuracy. Contemporary works on Yahoo news pages were done Sood et al (2012) and later taken up by Yin et al (2016a) . Xiang et al (2012) detected offensive tweets using logistic regression over a tweet dataset with the help of a dictionary of 339 offensive words.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Learning to rank methods [12,16,23,35,36,43,48,50,60,65] have been widely used in the recommendation and ranking literatures, primarily to re-rank a small shortlist of items which has been generated by simple heuristics like tf-idf scoring or by more scalable approaches like extreme classifiers or XReg. These rankers usually have super-linear dependence on the number of labels and hence do not scale to XR.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%