Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Computational Modeling of People’s Opinions, Personality, and Emotions in Social Media
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The idea of organizing PEOPLES stemmed from two related observations, namely the availability of large amounts of spontaneous data covering a range of personal aspects and the fact that such aspects are usually studied in isolation.Social media users nowadays freely express what is on their mind at any moment in time, at any location, and about virtually anything.These large amounts of spontaneously produced texts open up a unique opportunity to learn more about such users, e.g., predicting demographic variables (age, gender), but also personality types, as well as emotions and opinion expressions.This observation is not new, of course, and this opportunity has largely been exploited in the recent years, with abundant works on sentiment analysis, emotion detection, and personality.However, such traits of human personality and behavior have indeed attracted a substantial amount of attention but have been mostly studied in isolation, often in different -but related -communities, such as NLP, CL, AI.Therefore, we thought that the time was ripe to bring these communities a step closer to study people's traits and expressions jointly and in their interplay on such large volumes of available data.The communities' response, with 25 received submissions coming from 11 different countries and going well beyond typical NLP topics, proves again this year that there is wide interest at this intersection, and we are happy to be able to provide a context for exchanging ideas.Following the reviewers's advice, 14 papers were selected for inclusion in the proceedings.They cover a wide range of topics related to the three main PEOPLES themes (personality, emotion and opinion), their interaction and the impact of their modeling on social aspects like well-being, political preferences, humor and language use.To further enrich this volume, we additionally invited our keynote speakers to submit position papers that accompany their talks, and are excited that both of our keynotes submitted excellent papers touching upon issues of making NLP models more demographically aware and how researchers from related fields such as demography can benefit from NLP techniques.We hope that this is just the second edition of what will become series of workshops bringing together researchers in Computational Linguistics, Natural Language Processing and Computational Social Science, who share an interest in personality, opinion and emotion detection, and especially in researching the intertwining of such traits and expressions.We would like to thank our program committee consisting of 33 researchers from a variety of backgrounds for their insightful and constructive reviews.Without their support, this workshop would not have been possible.In addition, we thank all authors for submitting papers and making PEOPLES a big success.Also thanks to our two invited speakers, Dirk Hovy and Letizia Mencarini (Bocconi University, Italy), for having accepted to come to the workshop and share their expertise and ideas on PEOPLES' topics.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,015 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».