Subjectivity detection in spoken and written conversations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this work we investigate four subjectivity and polarity tasks on spoken and written conversations. We implement and compare several pattern-based subjectivity detection approaches, including a novel technique wherein subjective patterns are learned from both labeled and unlabeled data, using n-gram word sequences with varying levels of lexical instantiation. We compare the use of these learned patterns with an alternative approach of using a very large set of raw pattern features. We also investigate how these pattern-based approaches can be supplemented and improved with features relating to conversation structure. Experimenting with meeting speech and email threads, we find that our novel systems incorporating varying instantiation patterns and conversation features outperform state-of-the-art systems despite having no recourse to domain-specific features such as prosodic cues and email headers. In some cases, such as when working with noisy speech recognizer output, a small set of well-motivated conversation features performs as well as a very large set of raw patterns.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it