2017
DOI: 10.1007/s10844-017-0458-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Location detection and disambiguation from twitter messages

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
34
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(34 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
34
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Such geographic distributions can be utilized for disambiguating a target place name based on its context words. Inkpen et al (2015) used both a gazetteer and word features (e.g., part of speech, left words, and right words) to train a conditional random field model which can extract cities, states, and countries from texts.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such geographic distributions can be utilized for disambiguating a target place name based on its context words. Inkpen et al (2015) used both a gazetteer and word features (e.g., part of speech, left words, and right words) to train a conditional random field model which can extract cities, states, and countries from texts.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This information is presented to the users to verify matching pairs of entities. (Inkpen et al, 2017) proposed a set of heuristic rules to disambiguate location names in Twitter 5 messages. Their heuristics rely on geographical (latitude-longitude, geographic hierarchy) and demographic information (population of a region).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Inkpen et al [6] developed an algorithm that extracts expressions composed of one or more words for each place name. They use a Conditional Random Fields classifier, which is based on an unguided graphical model that is used for unstructured predictions [4].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As well as we know, only two works take into account disambiguation: Silva et al [15] and Inkpen et al [6]. The first one recognizes if ambiguity is present, so it takes into account the elements related to involved entities, however it does not take into account variations in the names of places.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation