MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2294703018

Emotional Tweets

2012· article· en· W2294703018 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJoint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWordNetLexiconMicrobloggingComputer scienceSocial mediaNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceTask (project management)Sentiment analysisAffect (linguistics)Emotion detectionEmotion classificationWord (group theory)Domain (mathematical analysis)Semantics (computer science)Emotion recognitionWorld Wide WebPsychologyLinguistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detecting emotions in microblogs and social media posts has applications for industry, health, and security. However, there exists no microblog corpus with instances labeled for emotions for developing supervised systems. In this paper, we describe how we created such a corpus from Twitter posts using emotion-word hashtags. We conduct experiments to show that the self-labeled hashtag annotations are consistent and match with the annotations of trained judges. We also show how the Twitter emotion corpus can be used to improve emotion classification accuracy in a different domain. Finally, we extract a word-emotion association lexicon from this Twitter corpus, and show that it leads to significantly better results than the manually crafted WordNet Affect lexicon in an emotion classification task.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it