Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 97 references

Why They Link: An Intent Taxonomy for Including Hyperlinks in Social Posts

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes a reader-centered taxonomy of hyperlink-sharing intent in social posts—six broad categories and 26 fine-grained classes—and shows that adding the inferred intent as a retrieval feature improves microblog search.

desk verdict A genuinely new, well-documented URL-intent taxonomy that deserves a serious look, but the reliability and retrieval claims need a firmer footing. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.17601 v2 pith:PUKLDC2K submitted 2026-01-24 cs.IR cs.SI

Fangping Lan , Abdullah Aljebreen , Eduard C. Dragut This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.IRcs.SI
keywords intenttaxonomyhyperlinkssocialmediamicroblogretrievalcrowdsourcinglargelanguagemodelsTwitterreader-centered
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to answer a question that is hard to observe directly: why do people include a URL in a social post? Rather than surveying authors, it asks readers to interpret the purpose of each link and builds a taxonomy of perceived intentions from open-ended crowd annotations refined with LLM assistance. The resulting scheme has six top-level categories and 26 specific intention classes. Applied to 1,000 real tweets, it finds advertisement, argument, and sharing to be the most common perceived intents. The authors further show that adding this intent signal as a retrieval feature produces a consistent gain in microblog search, suggesting the taxonomy has practical use beyond labeling.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the intent taxonomy itself: a two-level hierarchy of six categories and 26 fine-grained intention classes. It is produced by a hybrid, three-phase pipeline: (A) open coding—screened crowd workers freely type the perceived purpose of the URL in 2,500 tweets; (B) cleaning—proofreading, standardizing, purging non-intent statements, and deduping reduce 2,500 raw codes to 754; and (C) affinity mapping—two rounds of card-sorting by five workers each group the codes into 28 fine-grained intentions and then 6 coarse categories. An LLM then proposes descriptive names, definitions, and examples, which the research team reviews; the final examples are manually curated from re

What would settle it

An independent re-annotation of the same 1,000 tweets by a fresh set of annotators that fails to reproduce majority labels at a comparable rate, or a larger-query retrieval experiment in which the intent feature yields no gain over BM25, would undermine the reliability and utility claimed for the taxonomy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the perceived intention behind a URL in a post can be organized into a compact, reusable taxonomy: six high-level categories—information sharing, entertainment/humor, assistance/information provision, discussion/opinion expression, promotion/advertisement, and request/call for action—with 26 fine-grained intention classes. The taxonomy is derived bottom-up from more than two thousand open codes produced by screened crowd workers, then refined using a large language model to assign descriptive names, definitions, and examples, with all canonical examples manually curated from real posts. The paper also claims empirical support: in 1,000 randomly sampled tweet

Load-bearing premise

That the perceived intentions of a small group of screened crowd workers are a reliable and stable proxy for the true intent behind a URL-sharing post, despite only fair inter-annotator agreement (Fleiss' kappa 0.216) and 22.5% of tweets lacking high consensus.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Intent-aware retrieval: appending hyperlink intent labels to queries and tweets yields higher nDCG@10 (0.4166 to 0.4374) and MAP (0.4518 to 0.4757) on the TREC 2011 microblog queries.
  • Filtering mismatches: intent labels can remove high-lexical-overlap results whose purpose (e.g., humor) conflicts with a factual query, improving precision.
  • Crisis response: distinguishing informative, actionable URLs from promotional or deceptive ones can help prioritize useful posts in disaster settings.
  • Misinformation: categorizing link-sharing intent provides a principled way to characterize and detect deceptive dissemination patterns.
  • Coverage: the taxonomy subsumes prior tweet-intent schemes and adds an Entertainment/Humor category, making it applicable to both linked and unlinked posts.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the released taxonomy is paired with an automated classifier trained on the 1,000 labeled posts, it could become a general social-media feature for ranking, recommendation, and misinformation filtering; the paper itself does not train such a classifier.
  • The retrieval gain is demonstrated on only 15 TREC queries, so part of the lift may come from query expansion rather than the semantic content of the intent labels; an ablation that removes the intent term would separate these effects.
  • The prevalence ranking (advertising, arguing, sharing) is likely specific to this Twitter sample and time window; re-running the same annotation protocol on other platforms or eras would test whether the six-category structure remains stable.
  • The reader-centered framing suggests that perceived intent, not the author's private motive, is the operationally relevant signal for information retrieval; a small interview study could verify how often perceived intent matches author intent.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a reader-centered taxonomy of intentions behind URLs in social media posts. It describes a bottom-up crowdsourcing pipeline: 25 screened AMT workers open-code 2,500 tweets into 754 codes, which are cleaned and grouped by 5 AMT workers into 28 groups and then 6 coarse categories, refined with LLM assistance to produce 6 top-level categories and 26 fine-grained intention classes. A second study applies the taxonomy to 1,000 tweets with 5 workers, reporting prevalence (promote, converse, share are most common) and a follow-up context-augmented annotation for low-agreement items. The taxonomy is compared with prior tweet-intent taxonomies, and a retrieval experiment on 15 TREC 2011 queries reports that augmenting BM25 with intent labels improves nDCG@10 from 0.4166 to 0.4374 and MAP from 0.4518 to 0.4757.

Significance. If the taxonomy proves stable, it would be a useful, reusable resource for intent-aware IR and social media analysis. Strengths include the collection of a large tweet-URL dataset, detailed AMT worker screening, public release of the taxonomy, manual curation of authentic examples, a hybrid human-LLM construction described stepwise, and an expert agreement check on a high-consensus subset (Cohen's kappa 0.793). The comparison to prior taxonomies and the Study 2 context-augmentation experiment are also useful. However, the empirical grounding is currently incomplete: the overall annotator agreement is low, the internal validity of the 6+26 structure is not established by independent replication, the pipeline has unexplained numerical transitions, and the retrieval demonstration is too small and lacks controls. The contribution is better viewed as a plausible, well-motivated taxonomy proposal than as a fully validated empirical result.

major comments (4)
  1. [3.2–3.3, Table 1] The pipeline's numerical transitions are unexplained. The text reports 754 codes, then 28 intention groups with 442 fine-grained intentions, then 'another round' yielding 6 coarse classes, but Table 1 lists exactly 26 fine-grained classes. It is not stated how 442 fine-grained intentions were reduced to 26, how the 28 groups were mapped to the 6 top-level categories, or how the LLM refinement changed the earlier crowd groupings. This is not a presentation detail: it is the derivation of the central artifact, and without it the 6+26 structure is not reproducible. Please provide the grouping/merging decision rules or an appendix mapping the 442 codes to the 26 classes, and clarify the role of GPT-5 versus human consensus.
  2. [4.3, Figure 4] The reliability evidence is insufficient for the prevalence claims. Fleiss' kappa = 0.216 over all 1,000 items and 0.259 on the high-consensus subset is low; 'high consensus' is defined as 4/5 agreement, yet 22.5% of items have no high consensus. The expert Cohen's kappa of 0.793 covers only the 775 high-consensus tweets, so it does not validate the taxonomy on the NC-UN subset or on the fine-grained labels outside that subset. The distribution in Figure 4 is based on the same five workers' labels. Because the development and evaluation runs are unreplicated, the stability of the 6+26 structure and the reported prevalence are not established. I would ask for a split-half or independent re-annotation of a random sample, or release of per-item labels so the community can assess agreement.
  3. [5.2, Table 5] The retrieval demonstration is not yet convincing. The reported gains are from 15 TREC queries with no significance testing; the only comparison is BM25 vs BM25+Intent. The augmentation concatenates inferred query-intent words and tweet-intent labels into the text scored by BM25, so both sides gain the same label vocabulary. A control condition with random labels or with a matched non-intent feature is needed to show that the improvement comes from intent semantics rather than from adding any token to both query and document. Also, the method for inferring query intent from [46] is only referenced, not operationalized, and the tweet-intent annotation in the top-50 is not described (who labeled, with what agreement). Please report per-query results and a significance test.
  4. [Data availability] The paper releases only the taxonomy (GitHub), not the 2,500 development annotations or the 1,000 labeled tweets used for Figure 4 and Study 2. The central empirical numbers therefore cannot be independently checked. In a submission whose contribution is an 'empirically grounded' scheme, the underlying labels should be made available, or a clear reason given for withholding them. This is especially important given the low overall agreement and the absence of a replication run.
minor comments (4)
  1. [3.2] Arithmetic check: 754 codes minus 311 discarded due to similarity yields 443, not 442. If this is not a typo, explain the discrepancy.
  2. [4.3] The context-study results for the 83 NC-UN reply tweets are reported only as the percentage with a majority intention (80% and 78%). Report agreement metrics (e.g., Fleiss' kappa) for that subset as well, since the claim is that context improves annotation reliability.
  3. [5.1, Table 4] The claim that prior categories are 'fully subsumed' is stronger than the mapping supports; for example, 'Personal Message' from [47] and 'Chat' from [29] are aligned with broader categories. Provide a more detailed mapping with definitions, or soften the claim.
  4. [5.2] In the 'thorpe return in 2012 olympics' example, the query intent classification and the linked-content inspection are asserted without evidence. Specify how the query was classified and how the linked content was inspected, or treat this as an illustrative anecdote rather than a demonstration.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Taxonomy is data-derived and self-contained; no prediction reduces to its fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is bottom-up: 2,500 open codes from AMT workers are refined into 754 codes, then grouped by majority vote into 28 intention groups and 6 top-level categories, with LLM assistance used only to rename and define categories after the crowd groupings existed. The resulting taxonomy is therefore an empirical summary of the annotation data, not a quantity fitted to a target equation, and no prediction is derived from a fitted parameter. The claims that prior taxonomies leave 32.5% of URL-linked tweets unclassifiable and that the new taxonomy reduces 'uncertain' to 4.4% are comparisons between two independent annotation runs using different category sets; the reported reduction is not guaranteed by construction because the 32.5% figure comes from a pilot with prior taxonomies, while the 4.4% figure comes from the full study using the new taxonomy. The retrieval demonstration (BM25 0.4166 → 0.4374 nDCG@10; MAP 0.4518 → 0.4757) could in principle be circular if the intent labels were identical to relevance, but the paper only claims a small illustrative gain on 15 TREC queries and explicitly frames it as a demonstration of utility, not as a fitted or optimized prediction. References to the authors' prior crawling pipelines ([2], [3], [16], [18]) and to their own prior taxonomy paper [50] are contextual; the authors' prior work is not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification for the taxonomy's validity. The taxonomy is publicly released, so the labeled categories are externally checkable. The main limitations are empirical reliability concerns (Fleiss' kappa 0.216, 'fair', and 22.5% of tweets without high consensus), which bear on correctness and robustness, not on circularity. Thus no specific reduction to input by construction is present, and the appropriate score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on hand-chosen annotation thresholds, the assumption that crowd labels capture a real reader-perceived construct, and a self-collected tweet dataset. The taxonomy itself is an invented analytical entity with only internal validation. No numerical parameters are fitted to an external ground truth, so the ledger is dominated by domain assumptions rather than fitted constants.

free parameters (3)
  • High consensus threshold
    At least 4 of 5 annotators must agree for a tweet to receive a label (Section 4); this hand-chosen threshold determines the 77.5% usable subset and all prevalence numbers.
  • Majority threshold for grouping codes
    Simple majority among 5 AMT groupers decides category membership and duplicate merging (Section 3.2C); arbitrary and directly shapes the final 6/26 structure.
  • Qualification acceptance criterion
    Workers must correctly annotate at least 4 of 5 qualification tweets to become eligible (Section 3.1.2); controls which five workers label the 1,000-tweet study.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Reader-perceived intention is a coherent, annotatable construct.
    The entire framework assumes readers can infer why a URL was included from post text plus linked content; stated through examples in Section 1.
  • domain assumption Screened AMT crowd labels approximate readers' interpretations.
    Only indirectly supported by expert-vs-crowd agreement on a subset; overall Fleiss' kappa is 0.216 (Section 4.3).
  • domain assumption The 'Tweets with URLs' collection is a random, unbiased sample of hyperlinked tweets.
    Tweets come from the authors' own crawling pipelines (Section 3.1.1, 4.1) with no external validation of representativeness.
  • domain assumption Existing taxonomies [14,29,47] can be faithfully mapped to the new taxonomy by name/definition.
    Section 5.1 admits prior categories lack clear definitions and examples, so the 'fully subsumed' claim rests on a best-effort name-based mapping.
  • domain assumption BM25 over text concatenated with manually injected intent labels is a meaningful test of intent utility.
    The retrieval demo (Section 5.2) uses only 15 queries, manual labels, and no significance testing; improvement may reflect label injection rather than taxonomy validity.
invented entities (1)
  • Hyperlink intent taxonomy (6 top-level categories, 26 fine-grained classes)
    purpose: Central classification scheme used for annotation, prevalence analysis, and retrieval features.
    Constructed from crowd codes and LLM refinement; no external benchmark demonstrates its validity beyond internal agreement statistics and a 15-query retrieval demo.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Why They Link: An Intent Taxonomy for Including Hyperlinks in Social Posts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PUKLDC2K

@misc{pith2026260117601,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Why They Link: An Intent Taxonomy for Including Hyperlinks in Social Posts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PUKLDC2K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.17601}
}
read the original abstract

URLs serve as bridges between social media platforms and the broader web, linking user-generated content to external information resources. On Twitter (X), approximately one in five tweets contains at least one URL, underscoring their central role in information dissemination. While prior studies have examined the motivations of authors who share URLs, such author-centered intentions are difficult to observe in practice. To enable broader downstream use, this work investigates reader-centered interpretations, i.e., how users perceive the intentions behind hyperlinks included in posts. We develop an intent taxonomy for including hyperlinks in social posts through a hybrid approach that begins with a bottom-up, data-driven process using large-scale crowdsourced annotations, and is then refined using a large language model (LLM) assistance to generate descriptive category names and precise definitions. The final taxonomy comprises 6 top-level categories and 26 fine-grained intention classes, capturing diverse communicative purposes. Applying this taxonomy, we annotate and analyze 1,000 user posts, revealing that advertising, arguing, and sharing are the most prevalent intentions. We further compare our taxonomy with existing taxonomies and demonstrate its utility in a microblog retrieval task by incorporating intent as an additional feature. Overall, our taxonomy provides a foundation for intent-aware information retrieval and NLP applications, enabling more accurate retrieval, recommendation, and interpretation of social media content.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.17601 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of a tweet with the URL of a product [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An example of a tweet that promises a free stream [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Our 3-phase framework of developing our intent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The distribution of overall intentions in Study 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example of two tweets where providing context to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [46]

    Jansen and Danielle Booth

    Bernard J. Jansen and Danielle Booth. 2010. Classifying web queries by topic and user intent. InCHI ’10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Atlanta, Georgia, USA)(CHI EA ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 4285–4290. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753846.1754140

    arXiv 2010

  2. [1]

    de Vries

    Daria Alexander, Wojciech Kusa, and Arjen P. de Vries. 2022. ORCAS-I: Queries Annotated with Intent using Weak Supervision. InProceedings of the 45th In- ternational ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval(Madrid, Spain)(SIGIR ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3057–3066. https://doi.org/10.1145...

    arXiv 2022

  3. [2]

    Abdullah Aljebreen, Weiyi Meng, and Eduard Dragut. 2021. Segmentation of Tweets with URLs and its Applications to Sentiment Analysis.Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence35, 14 (May 2021), 12480–12488. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v35i14.17480

    work page doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i14.17480 2021

  4. [3]

    Pink Slime

    Abdullah Aljebreen, Weiyi Meng, and Eduard C. Dragut. 2024. Analysis and Detection of "Pink Slime" Websites in Social Media Posts. InWWW. 2572–2581

    2024

  5. [4]

    Omar Alonso and Stefano Mizzaro. 2008. Crowdsourcing for Relevance Assess- ment.SIGIR Forum42, 2 (2008), 9–15

    2008

  6. [5]

    Jumanah Alshehri, Martin Pavlovski, Eduard Dragut, and Zoran Obradovic. 2023. Aligning Comments to News Articles on a Budget.IEEE Access11 (2023), 18900– 18909. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3247948

    arXiv 2023

  7. [6]

    Jumanah Alshehri, Marija Stanojevic, Eduard Dragut, and Zoran Obradovic. 2021. Stay on Topic, Please: Aligning User Comments to the Content of a News Article. InAdvances in Information Retrieval. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 3–17

    2021

  8. [7]

    Kanghui Baek, Avery Holton, Dustin Harp, and Carolyn Yaschur. 2011. The links that bind: Uncovering novel motivations for linking on Facebook.Computers in Human Behavior27, 6 (2011), 2243–2248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.07. 003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.07 2011

Show all 97 references
  1. [8]

    Pierpaolo Basile and Annalina Caputo. [n. d.].Entity linking for tweets. 171–179

  2. [9]

    Moumita Basu, Anurag Shandilya, Kripabandhu Ghosh, and Saptarshi Ghosh

  3. [10]

    Michael Bloodgood and Chris Callison-Burch. 2010. Using Mechanical Turk to Build Machine Translation Evaluation Sets. InMturk@HLT-NAACL

    2010

  4. [11]

    Jonathan Cable and Glyn Mottershead. 2018. ’Can I click it? Yes you can’: Football journalism, Twitter, and clickbait.Ethical space15 (2018), 69–80. https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:169772143

    2018

  5. [12]

    Bruce Croft

    Berkant Barla Cambazoglu, Leila Tavakoli, Falk Scholer, Mark Sanderson, and W. Bruce Croft. 2021. An Intent Taxonomy for Questions Asked in Web Search. Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval (2021)

    2021

  6. [13]

    Abhijnan Chakraborty, Rajdeep Sarkar, Ayushi Mrigen, and Niloy Ganguly

  7. [14]

    Arifah Che Alhadi, Steffen Staab, and Thomas Gottron. 2011. Exploring User Purpose Writing Single Tweets

    2011

  8. [15]

    Gina Masullo Chen. 2011. Tweet this: A uses and gratifications perspective on how active Twitter use gratifies a need to connect with others.CHB27 (2011), 755–762

    2011

  9. [16]

    Zhijia Chen, Lihong He, Arjun Mukherjee, and Eduard Dragut. 2024. Comquest: Large Scale User Comment Crawling and Integration. InACM SIGIR. 432–435

    2024

  10. [17]

    Liu, Meichun Hsu, Malú Castellanos, and Riddhiman Ghosh

    Zhiyuan Chen, B. Liu, Meichun Hsu, Malú Castellanos, and Riddhiman Ghosh

  11. [18]

    Zhijia Chen, Weiyi Meng, and Eduard C. Dragut. 2025. ComCrawler: General Crawling Solution for Article Comments. InProceedings 28th International Con- ference on Extending Database Technology, EDBT 2025, Barcelona, Spain, March 25-28, 2025. 1023–1031

    2025

  12. [19]

    Wei Yen Chong, Bhawani Selvaretnam, and Lay-Ki Soon. 2014. Natural Language Processing for Sentiment Analysis: An Exploratory Analysis on Tweets.IICAIET (2014), 212–217. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:18835260

    2014

  13. [20]

    Anne Cocos, Ting Qian, Chris Callison-Burch, and Aaron J. Masino. 2017. Crowd control: Effectively utilizing unscreened crowd workers for biomedical data annotation.JBI69 (2017), 86–92

    2017

  14. [21]

    Honghua Dai, Lin fen Zhao, Zaiqing Nie, Ji-Rong Wen, Lee Wang, and Ying Li

  15. [22]

    Daantje Derks, Arjan E. R. Bos, and Jasper von Grumbkow. 2008. Emoticons in Computer-Mediated Communication: Social Motives and Social Context.Cy- berpsychology & behavior : the impact of the Internet, multimedia and virtual reality on behavior and society11 1 (2008), 99–101

    2008

  16. [23]

    James Price Dillard and Lijiang Shen. 2005. On the Nature of Reactance and its Role in Persuasive Health Communication.Communication Monographs72 (2005), 144 – 168. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:145303261

    2005

  17. [24]

    Zhuoye Ding, Xipeng Qiu, Qi Zhang, and Xuanjing Huang. 2013. Learning topical translation model for microblog hashtag suggestion. InProceedings of the Twenty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence(Beijing, China)(IJCAI ’13). AAAI Press, 2078–2084

    2013

  18. [25]

    Dragut, Clement Yu, Prasad Sistla, and Weiyi Meng

    Eduard C. Dragut, Clement Yu, Prasad Sistla, and Weiyi Meng. 2010. Construction of a sentimental word dictionary. InCIKM (CIKM ’10). 1761–1764

    2010

  19. [26]

    Eveland and Dhavan V

    William P. Eveland and Dhavan V. Shah. 2003. The Impact of Individual and Interpersonal Factors on Perceived News Media Bias.Political Psychology24 (2003), 101–117. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:15275276

    2003

  20. [27]

    Yuan Fang and Ming-Wei Chang. 2014. Entity Linking on Microblogs with Spatial and Temporal Signals.Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics2 (2014), 259–272. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:11642874

    2014

  21. [28]

    Flanagin and Miriam J

    Andrew J. Flanagin and Miriam J. Metzger. 2001. Internet use in the contemporary media environment.Human Communication Research27 (2001)

    2001

  22. [29]

    Helena Gómez-Adorno, David Pinto, Manuel Montes y Gómez, Grigori Sidorov, and ro Sandy González Alfaro. 2014. Content and Style Features for Automatic Detection of Users’ Intentions in Tweets. InIBERAMIA

    2014

  23. [30]

    Paul Haridakis and Zachary Humphries. 2019. Uses and Gratifications. (2019)

    2019

  24. [31]

    Lihong He, Chao Han, Arjun Mukherjee, Zoran Obradovic, and Eduard Dragut

  25. [32]

    Lihong He, Chen Shen, Arjun Mukherjee, Slobodan Vucetic, and Eduard Dragut

  26. [33]

    Danula Hettiachchi, Vassilis Kostakos, and Jorge Goncalves. 2022. A Survey on Task Assignment in Crowdsourcing.ACM Comput. Surv.55, 3, Article 49 (Feb. 2022), 35 pages

    2022

  27. [34]

    Lance Holbert

    R. Lance Holbert. 2014. Uses and Gratifications. (2014)

    2014

  28. [35]

    Eric Holgate, Isabel Cachola, Daniel Preotiuc-Pietro, and Junyi Jessy Li. 2018. Why Swear? Analyzing and Inferring the Intentions of Vulgar Expressions. In EMNLP

    2018

  29. [36]

    Holton, Kanghui Baek, Mark Coddington, and Carolyn Yaschur

    Avery E. Holton, Kanghui Baek, Mark Coddington, and Carolyn Yaschur. 2014. Seeking and Sharing: Motivations for Linking on Twitter.Communication Re- search Reports31 (2014), 33 – 40

    2014

  30. [37]

    Yoo Jin Hong, Hye Soo Park, Eunki Joung, and Jihyeong Hong. 2024. MOJI: En- hancing Emoji Search System with Query Expansions and Emoji Recommenda- tions. InExtended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI EA ’24). Associati...

    2024

  31. [38]

    Sameera Horawalavithana, Ravindu De Silva, Mohamed Nabeel, Charitha Elviti- gala, Primal Wijesekera, and Adriana Iamnitchi. 2021. Malicious and Low Cred- ibility URLs on Twitter During the AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine Develop- ment. InInternational Conference on Social, Cultur...

    2021

  32. [39]

    Marjan Hosseinia, Eduard Dragut, and Arjun Mukherjee. 2019. Pro/Con: Neural Detection of Stance in Argumentative Opinions. InSocial, Cultural, and Behavioral Modeling. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 21–30

    2019

  33. [40]

    Derek Hao Hu, Dou Shen, Jian-Tao Sun, Qiang Yang, and Zheng Chen. 2009. Context-Aware Online Commercial Intention Detection. InACML

    2009

  34. [41]

    Wang, Frederick H

    Jian Hu, G. Wang, Frederick H. Lochovsky, Jian-Tao Sun, and Zheng Chen. 2009. Understanding user’s query intent with wikipedia. InWWW ’09

    2009

  35. [42]

    Nguyen, and Jiebo Luo

    Tianran Hu, Han Guo, Hao Sun, T. Nguyen, and Jiebo Luo. 2017. Spice Up Your Chat: The Intentions and Sentiment Effects of Using Emojis. InICWSM

    2017

  36. [43]

    Amanda Lee Hughes and Leysia Palen. 2009. Twitter adoption and use in mass convergence and emergency events.International Journal of Emergency Manage- ment6 (2009), 248–248. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:109006177

    2009

  37. [44]

    Kyle Hunt, Bairong Wang, and Jun Zhuang. 2020. Misinformation debunking and cross-platform information sharing through Twitter during Hurricanes Harvey and Irma: a case study on shelters and ID checks.Natural Hazards(2020), 1–23. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:218912364

    2020

  38. [45]

    Muhammad Imran, Carlos Castillo, Ji Lucas, Patrick Meier, and Sarah Vieweg

  39. [47]

    Finin, and Belle L

    Akshay Java, Xiaodan Song, Timothy W. Finin, and Belle L. Tseng. 2007. Why we twitter: understanding microblogging usage and communities. InWebKDD/SNA- KDD ’07

    2007

  40. [48]

    Elihu Katz. 1959. Mass Communications Research and the Study of Popular Culture: An Editorial Note on a Possible Future for This Journal

    1959

  41. [49]

    1992.The Metaphysics of Mind

    Anthony Kenny. 1992.The Metaphysics of Mind. Oxford University Press. https: //doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780192830708.001.0001

    1992

  42. [50]

    Fangping Lan, Abdullah Aljebreen, and Eduard Dragut. 2025. UniT: One Doc- ument, Many Revisions, Too Many Edit Intention Taxonomies. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025, Wanxiang Che, Joyce Nabende, Ekaterina Shutova, and Mohammad Taher Pilehv...

    2025 doi

  43. [51]

    J Richard Landis and Gary G. Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.Biometrics33 1 (1977), 159–74

    1977

  44. [52]

    Jiayu Li, Peijie Sun, Zhefan Wang, Weizhi Ma, Yangkun Li, Min Zhang, Zhoutian Feng, and Daiyue Xue. 2023. Intent-aware Ranking Ensemble for Personalized Recommendation. arXiv:2304.07450 [cs.IR] https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.07450

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Xiao Li. 2010. Understanding the Semantic Structure of Noun Phrase Queries. In ACL

    2010

  46. [54]

    Xiao Li, Ye-Yi Wang, and Alex Acero. 2008. Learning query intent from regularized click graphs. InSIGIR ’08

    2008

  47. [55]

    Xiaoyue Ma and Xu Fan. 2022. A review of the studies on social media images from the perspective of information interaction.Data and Information Management6, 1 (2022), 100004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dim.2022.100004

    2022

  48. [56]

    Marshall, Partha S.R

    Catherine C. Marshall, Partha S.R. Goguladinne, Mudit Maheshwari, Apoorva Sathe, and Frank M. Shipman. 2023. Who Broke Amazon Mechanical Turk? An Analysis of Crowdsourcing Data Quality over Time. InProceedings of the 15th ACM Web Science Conference 2023(Austin, TX, USA)(WebSci...

    2023

  49. [57]

    Kenny Meesters, Lars van Beek, and Bartel Van de Walle. 2016. #Help. The Reality of Social Media Use in Crisis Response: Lessons from a Realistic Crisis Exercise. HICSS(2016), 116–125. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:25270237

    2016

  50. [58]

    Mohammad, Xiao-Dan Zhu, Svetlana Kiritchenko, and Joel D

    Saif M. Mohammad, Xiao-Dan Zhu, Svetlana Kiritchenko, and Joel D. Martin

  51. [59]

    Jonathan S. Morris. 2007. Slanted Objectivity? Perceived Media Bias, Cable News Exposure, and Political Attitudes*.Social Science Quarterly88 (2007), 707–728. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:144127527

    2007

  52. [60]

    Mary A. Otieno. 2023.Affinity Research Approach. Springer International Pub- lishing, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04394-9_4

    2023 doi

  53. [61]

    Gabriella Pasi and Marco Viviani. 2020. Information Credibility in the Social Web: Contexts, Approaches, and Open Issues.ArXivabs/2001.09473 (2020). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:210920355

    2020 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Jürgen Pfeffer, Daniel Matter, and Anahit Sargsyan. 2023. The Half-Life of a Tweet. InProceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 17. 1163–1167

    2023

  55. [63]

    Joe Phua, Seunga Venus Jin, and Jihoon Kim. 2017. Uses and gratifications of social networking sites for bridging and bonding social capital: A comparison of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat.CHB72 (2017), 115–122

    2017

  56. [64]

    Volkmar Pipek, Sophia B Liu, and Andruid Kerne. 2014. Crisis informatics and collaboration: a brief introduction.Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 23 (2014), 339–345

    2014

  57. [65]

    Vivek Krishna Pradhan, Mike Schaekermann, and Matthew Lease. 2021. In Search of Ambiguity: A Three-Stage Workflow Design to Clarify Annotation Guidelines for Crowd Workers. arXiv:2112.02255 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.02255

    2021 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Shalin, Krishnaprasad Thirunarayan, and A

    Hemant Purohit, Guozhu Dong, Valerie L. Shalin, Krishnaprasad Thirunarayan, and A. Sheth. 2015. Intent Classification of Short-Text on Social Media.SmartCity (2015), 222–228

    2015

  59. [67]

    Hemant Purohit, Andrew Hampton, Shreyansh Bhatt, Valerie L Shalin, Amit P Sheth, and John M Flach. 2014. Identifying seekers and suppliers in social media communities to support crisis coordination.Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)23, 4 (2014), 513–545

    2014

  60. [68]

    Quick, Jennifer A

    Brian L. Quick, Jennifer A. Kam, Susan E. Morgan, Claudia A. Montero Liberona, and Rebecca A. Smith. 2015. Prospect theory, discrete emotions, and freedom Why They Link: An Intent Taxonomy for Including Hyperlinks in Social Posts WebSci ’26, May 26–29, 2026, Braunschweig, Germ...

    2015

  61. [69]

    Stephen Robertson and Hugo Zaragoza. 2009. The Probabilistic Relevance Frame- work: BM25 and Beyond.Found. Trends Inf. Retr.3, 4 (April 2009), 333–389. https://doi.org/10.1561/1500000019

    2009 doi

  62. [70]

    Ruggiero

    Thomas E. Ruggiero. 2000. Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century. Mass Communication and Society3 (2000), 3 – 37

    2000

  63. [71]

    Hany SalahEldeen and Michael L. Nelson. 2013. Reading the correct history?: modeling temporal intention in resource sharing. InJCDL ’13

    2013

  64. [72]

    Richard K. Scheer. 2001. Intentions, Motives, and Causation.Philosophy76, 297 (2001), 397–413. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3751778

    2001

  65. [73]

    Taylor Jackson Scott, Katie Kuksenok, Daniel Perry, Michael Brooks, Ona Anicello, and Cecilia R. Aragon. 2012. Adapting grounded theory to construct a taxonomy of affect in collaborative online chat. InSIGDOC. https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:274995

    2012

  66. [74]

    Chirag Shah, Ryen White, Reid Andersen, Georg Buscher, Scott Counts, Sarkar Das, Ali Montazer, Sathish Manivannan, Jennifer Neville, Nagu Rangan, Tara Safavi, Siddharth Suri, Mengting Wan, Leijie Wang, and Longqi Yang. 2025. Using Large Language Models to Generate, Validate, a...

    2025 doi

  67. [75]

    Shailesh Kumar Shivakumar. 2021. A Survey and Taxonomy of Intent-Based Code Search.Int. J. Softw. Innov.9 (2021), 69–110

    2021

  68. [76]

    Smock, Nicole B

    Andrew D. Smock, Nicole B. Ellison, Cliff Lampe, and Donghee Yvette Wohn

  69. [77]

    O’Connor, Dan Jurafsky, and A

    Rion Snow, Brendan T. O’Connor, Dan Jurafsky, and A. Ng. 2008. Cheap and Fast – But is it Good? Evaluating Non-Expert Annotations for Natural Language Tasks. InEMNLP. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:7008675

    2008

  70. [78]

    Bongwon Suh, Lichan Hong, Peter Pirolli, and Ed H. Chi. 2010. Want to be Retweeted? Large Scale Analytics on Factors Impacting Retweet in Twitter Net- work.SocialCom(2010), 177–184

    2010

  71. [79]

    Read, David A

    Jennifer Talevich, Stephen J. Read, David A. Walsh, Ravi Iyer, and Gurveen Chopra. 2017. Toward a comprehensive taxonomy of human motives.PLoS ONE 12 (2017)

    2017

  72. [80]

    Yuko Tanaka, Yasuaki Sakamoto, and Hidehito Honda. 2013. The Impact of Posting URLs in Disaster-Related Tweets on Rumor Spreading Behavior.HICSS (2013), 520–529

    2013

  73. [81]

    Channary Tauch and Eiman Kanjo. 2016. The roles of emojis in mobile phone notifications.UbiComp(2016)

    2016

  74. [82]

    Manos Tsagkias and Roi Blanco. 2012. Language intent models for inferring user browsing behavior. InProceedings of the 35th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval(Portland, Oregon, USA) (SIGIR ’12). Association for Computing Mac...

    2012

  75. [83]

    Alakananda Vempala and Daniel Preotiuc-Pietro. 2019. Categorizing and Inferring the Relationship between the Text and Image of Twitter Posts. InACL

    2019

  76. [84]

    Bing Wang, Ximing Li, Changchun Li, Bo Fu, Songwen Pei, and Shengsheng Wang. 2024. Why Misinformation is Created? Detecting them by Integrat- ing Intent Features. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management(Boise, ID, USA)(CIK...

    2024

  77. [85]

    Lei Wang and Eduard Dragut. 2024. The Overlooked Repetitive Lengthening Form in Sentiment Analysis. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024. 16225–16238. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.952

    2024 doi

  78. [86]

    Yashen Wang, Zhaoyu Wang, Huanhuan Zhang, and Zhirun Liu. 2023. Microblog Retrieval Based on Concept-Enhanced Pre-Training Model.ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data17, 3, Article 41 (Feb. 2023), 32 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3552311

    2023 doi

  79. [87]

    Lei Yang, Tao Sun, Ming Zhang, and Qiaozhu Mei. 2012. We know what @you #tag: does the dual role affect hashtag adoption?WWW(2012)

    2012

  80. [88]

    Yigeng Zhang, Fan Yang, Yifan Zhang, Eduard Dragut, and Arjun Mukherjee. 2020. Birds of a Feather Flock Together: Satirical News Detection via Language Model Differentiation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.02164(2020). arXiv:2007.02164 [cs.CL]

    2020 arXiv

  81. [2006]

    InWWW ’06

    Detecting online commercial intention (OCI). InWWW ’06

  82. [2011]

    Facebook as a toolkit: A uses and gratification approach to unbundling feature use.CHB27 (2011), 2322–2329

    2011

  83. [2013]

    Identifying Intention Posts in Discussion Forums. InNAACL. WebSci ’26, May 26–29, 2026, Braunschweig, Germany Fangping Lan, Abdullah Aljebreen, and Eduard Dragut

    2026

  84. [2014]

    InProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web(Seoul, Korea)(WWW ’14 Companion)

    AIDR: artificial intelligence for disaster response. InProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web(Seoul, Korea)(WWW ’14 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 159–162. https://doi.org/10.1145/2567948.2577034

  85. [2015]

    Sentiment, emotion, purpose, and style in electoral tweets.Inf. Process. Manag.51 (2015), 480–499

    2015

  86. [2017]

    https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:197719632

    Tabloids in the Era of Social Media? Understanding the Production and Consumption of Clickbaits in Twitter.Cognition & Culture: Culture(2017). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:197719632

    2017

  87. [2018]

    InCompanion Proceedings of the The Web Conference 2018(Lyon, France)(WWW ’18)

    Automatic Matching of Resource Needs and Availabilities in Microblogs for Post-Disaster Relief. InCompanion Proceedings of the The Web Conference 2018(Lyon, France)(WWW ’18). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Republic and Canton of Geneva, CHE, 25–26...

    2018

  88. [2020]

    https://doi.org/10.1002/widm

    On the dynamics of user engagement in news comment media.WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery10, 1 (2020), e1342. https://doi.org/10.1002/widm. 1342 arXiv:https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/widm.1342

    2020 doi

  89. [2021]

    InICWSM, Vol

    Cannot Predict Comment Volume of a News Article before (a few) Users Read It. InICWSM, Vol. 15. 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v15i1.18051

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.