Paper detail

Expert Finding in Legal Community Question Answering

Expert finding has been well-studied in community question answering (QA) systems in various domains. However, none of these studies addresses expert finding in the legal domain, where the goal is for citizens to find lawyers based on their expertise. In the legal domain, there is a large knowledge gap between the experts and the searchers, and the content on the legal QA websites consist of a combination formal and informal communication. In this paper, we propose methods for generating query-dependent textual profiles for lawyers covering several aspects including sentiment, comments, and recency. We combine query-dependent profiles with existing expert finding methods. Our experiments are conducted on a novel dataset gathered from an online legal QA service. We discovered that taking into account different lawyer profile aspects improves the best baseline model. We make our dataset publicly available for future work.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.