MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2464521204 · doi:10.18653/v1/s16-1004

SemEval-2016 Task 7: Determining Sentiment Intensity of English and Arabic Phrases

2016· article· en· W2464521204 on OpenAlex
Svetlana Kiritchenko, Saif M. Mohammad, Mohammad Salameh

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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceNatural language processingPhraseTask (project management)Artificial intelligenceSemEvalArabicWord (group theory)Domain (mathematical analysis)LinguisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a shared task on automatically determining sentiment intensity of a word or a phrase. The words and phrases are taken from three domains: general English, English Twit-ter, and Arabic Twitter. The phrases include those composed of negators, modals, and degree adverbs as well as phrases formed by words with opposing polarities. For each of the three domains, we assembled the datasets that include multi-word phrases and their constituent words, both manually annotated for real-valued sentiment intensity scores. The three datasets were presented as the test sets for three separate tasks (each focusing on a specific domain). Five teams submitted nine system outputs for the three tasks. All datasets created for this shared task are freely available to the research community.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Quick stats

Citations97
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningFrench-language works237,207