MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Inter-Annotator Agreement in Sentiment Analysis: Machine Learning Perspective

2017· article· en· W2773532513 on OpenAlex
Victoria Bobicev, Marina Sokolova

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 OttawaDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnnotationComputer sciencePerspective (graphical)Artificial intelligenceSentiment analysisReliability (semiconductor)AgreementNatural language processingMachine learningLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Manual text annotation is an essential part of Big Text analytics. Although annotators work with limited parts of data sets, their results are extrapolated by automated text classification and affect the final classification results. Reliability of annotations and adequacy of assigned labels are especially important in the case of sentiment annotations. In the current study we examine inter-annotator agreement in multiclass, multi-label sentiment annotation of messages. We used several annotation agreement measures, as well as statistical analysis and Machine Learning to assess the resulting annotations.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations69
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningFrench-language works237,207