What's in a Name? Using First Names as Features for Gender Inference in Twitter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite significant work on the problem of inferring a Twitter user’s gender from her online content, no systematic investigation has been made into leveraging the most obvious signal of a user’s gender: first name. In this paper, we perform a thorough investigation of the link between gender and first name in English tweets. Our work makes several important contributions. The first and most central contribution is two different strategies for incorporating the user’s self-reported name into a gender classifier. We find that this yields a 20% increase in accuracy over a standard baseline classifier. These classifiers are the most accurate gender inference methods for Twitter data developed to date. In order to evaluate our classifiers, we developed a novel way of obtaining gender-labels for Twitter users that does not require analysis of the user’s profile or textual content. This is our second contribution. Our approach eliminates the troubling issue of a label being somehow derived from the same text that a classifier will use to infer the label. Finally, we built a large dataset of gender-labeled Twitter users and, crucially, have published this dataset for community use. To our knowledge, this is the first gender-labeled Twitter dataset available for researchers. Our hope is that this will provide a basis for comparison of gender inference methods.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".