Learning Emotion-enriched Word Representations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most word representation learning methods are based on the distributional hypothesis in linguistics, according to which words that are used and occur in the same contexts tend to possess similar meanings. As a consequence, emotionally dissimilar words, such as “happy” and “sad” occurring in similar contexts would purport more similar meaning than emotionally similar words, such as “happy” and “joy”. This complication leads to rather undesirable outcome in predictive tasks that relate to affect (emotional state), such as emotion classification and emotion similarity. In order to address this limitation, we propose a novel method of obtaining emotion-enriched word representations, which projects emotionally similar words into neighboring spaces and emotionally dissimilar ones far apart. The proposed approach leverages distant supervision to automatically obtain a large training dataset of text documents and two recurrent neural network architectures for learning the emotion-enriched representations. Through extensive evaluation on two tasks, including emotion classification and emotion similarity, we demonstrate that the proposed representations outperform several competitive general-purpose and affective word representations.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".