Research on the Identification of a Winter Olympic Multi-Intent Chinese Problem Based on Multi-Model Fusion
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Even if the article reported an attempt that investigated real-life problem. The report is not well-written from the beginning to the end. Hence, referring to my last comment most key parts of the write up needs improvement. The detail is given below.
The introduction section is expected to provide an overview of the subject matter, "Winter Olympic Multi-Intent Chinese Problem" and statement of the problem that initiate the study. So I subject the authors to discuss about the problem and the approach they followed, "Multi-model Fusion" to solve the problem they attempt for.
The research design is not included in the paper which shows whether the study report was scientifically and objectively done or not. So it is my suggestion for authors to show the steps followed during the research process and methods/tools applied at every step towards achieving the objective of the study.
Further, even if the report tried to present the result of their study. In depth analysis is expected to extract the findings of the study. More specifically, interpretation is missing in the report so as to show the contribution the article is reporting to share the experience of the researchers for readers and scholars. Based on the findings of the study, the article has to further compare the new idea and insight of the study with previous research reports.
Finally, the conclusion has to be modified such that it should be derived from the results and findings of the study, followed by a suggestion of the next research direction.
With the help of software ;like Grammarly the quality of English can be further improved.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your comments on our manuscript. These comments are very valuable and helpful. We have carefully read these comments and made modifications. Based on your suggestions, we have completed the revised manuscript file, and the modified parts in the main text are displayed in blue.
The response to your feedback is as follows:
1、The introduction section is expected to provide an overview of the subject matter, "Winter Olympic Multi-Intent Chinese Problem" and statement of the problem that initiate the study. So I subject the authors to discuss about the problem and the approach they followed, "Multi-model Fusion" to solve the problem they attempt for.
Response：Thank you for your comment. Your comment pointed out our issue very well. We recognize that the introduction needs improvement, so we have rewritten the introduction section to ensure a clearer statement of the research problem, research purpose, and the advantages of the ""Multi-model Fusion" method (""Multi-model Fusion" is mainly reflected in the "main contribution of this article")
2、The research design is not included in the paper which shows whether the study report was scientifically and objectively done or not. So it is my suggestion for authors to show the steps followed during the research process and methods/tools applied at every step towards achieving the objective of the study.
Response：Regarding your opinion that I lack the research design section, we do realize that the lack of research design may affect readers' understanding of the research. This article does not have a clear research design, but there is a description of the model steps and required parameters in the model construction and experiment section. For other missing content, we have supplemented it between "4. Experiment and result analysis" and "4.1 Dataset" to ensure the scientific and objective nature of the research.
3、Further, even if the report tried to present the result of their study. In depth analysis is expected to extract the findings of the study. More specifically, interpretation is missing in the report so as to show the contribution the article is reporting to share the experience of the researchers for readers and scholars. Based on the findings of the study, the article has to further compare the new idea and insight of the study with previous research reports.
Response：Thank you for pointing out the issue. We have strengthened the results and analysis section. In the revised version, we have provided a more detailed analysis of the research results, providing detailed insights and explanations. This will better demonstrate the importance and contribution of research to the academic community. At the same time, we also added another dataset for comparison to verify the generalization of this model.
4、Finally, the conclusion has to be modified such that it should be derived from the results and findings of the study, followed by a suggestion of the next research direction.
Response：Your opinion has indeed sparked our reflection on the conclusion. We have revised the conclusion to ensure that it is more closely related to the actual results of the study and clearly propose suggestions for the next research direction.
Thank you again for your valuable feedback, which is very important to us. We have submitted a revised version and hope to receive your feedback again after the improvements.
Sincere greetings
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, the authors propose a multi-intent recognition model called BCNBLMATT to effectively answer the user problems related to the 2022 Winter Olympic Games.
The model is interesting although the problem considered by the authors does not seem to be a hot topic in the literature. The authors should also improve the presentation of the paper since, for example, the formulas are badly pasted in the pdf.
I suggest the authors include a "Discussion" section where they explain the possible generalization of their approach to contexts other than the Olympic Games. Such a section should be detailed and convincing.
No further comment
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your comments on our manuscript. These comments are very valuable and helpful. We have carefully read these comments and made modifications. Based on your suggestions, we have completed the revised manuscript file, and the modified parts in the main text are displayed in blue.
1、The model is interesting although the problem considered by the authors does not seem to be a hot topic in the literature. The authors should also improve the presentation of the paper since, for example, the formulas are badly pasted in the pdf.
Response：Thank you for pointing out the issue with formula layout. We have checked and fixed the layout of the formula to ensure greater clarity in the revised version.
2、I suggest the authors include a "Discussion" section where they explain the possible generalization of their approach to contexts other than the Olympic Games. Such a section should be detailed and convincing.
Response：Thank you very much for your suggestion. We do think it is a good supplement. We have introduced an additional dataset in "4.6. experimental results and analysis" for comparative experiments to verify the promotional performance of our proposed BCNBLMATT model in scenarios other than the Winter Olympics. Through this step, we attempt to demonstrate the applicability and generalization ability of our model more comprehensively.
Thank you again for your valuable feedback, which is very important to us. We have submitted a revised version and hope to receive your feedback again after the improvements.
Sincere greetings
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have striven to comply with my suggestions.
