MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885704429 · doi:10.5339/qfarc.2018.ictpd879

Annotation Guidelines for Text Analytics in Social Media

2018· article· en· W2885704429 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wajdi Zaghouani, Anis Charfi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAuthorship Attribution and Profiling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnnotationModern Standard ArabicComputer scienceVariety (cybernetics)Social mediaArabicProfiling (computer programming)AnalyticsNatural language processingLinguisticsArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Annotation Guidelines for Text Analytics in Social Media A person's language use reveals much about their profile, however, research in author profiling has always been constrained by the limited availability of training data, since collecting textual data with the appropriate meta-data requires a large collection and annotation effort (Maamouri et al. 2010; Diab et al. 2008; Hawwari et al. 2013).For every text, the characteristics of the author have to be known in order to successfully profile the author. Moreover, when the text is written in a dialectal variety such as the Arabic text found online in social media a representative dataset need to be available for each dialectal variety (Zaghouani et al. 2012; Zaghouani et al. 2016).The existing Arabic dialects are historically related to the classical Arabic and they co-exist with the Modern Standard Arabic in a diglossic relation. While the standard Arabic, has a clearly defined set of orthographic standards, the various Arabic dialects have no official orthographies and a given word could be written in multiple ways in different Arabic dialects (Maamouri et al. 2012; Jeblee et al. 2014).This abstract presents the guidelines and annotation work carried out within the framework of the Arabic Author profiling project (ARAP), a project that aims at developing author profiling resources and tools for a set of 12 regional Arabic dialects. We harvested our data from social media which reflect a natural and spontaneous writing style in dialectal Arabic from users in different regions of the Arabworld.For the Arabic language and its dialectal varieties as foundin social media, to the best of our knowledge, there is nocorpus available for the detection of age, gender, nativelanguage and dialectal variety. Most of the existingresources are available for English or other Europeanlanguages. Having a large amount of annotated data remains the key to reliable results in the taskof author profiling. In order to start the annotation process, we createdguidelines for the annotation of the Tweets according totheir dialectal variety, their native language, the gender of the user and the age. Before starting theannotation process, we hired and trained a group of annotators and we implemented a smooth annotation pipeline to optimize the annotation task. Finally, we followed a consistent annotation evaluation protocol to ensure a high inter-annotator agreement.The Annotations were done by carefully analyzing each ofthe user's profiles, their tweets, and when possible, weinstructed the annotators to use external resources such asLinkedIn or Facebook. We created a general profilesvalidation guidelines and task-specific guidelines toannotate the users according to their gender, age, dialectand their native language. For some accounts, the annotators were not able to identifythe gender as this was based in most of the cases on thename of the person or his profile photo and in some casesby their biography or profile description. In case thisinformation is not available, we instructed the annotators toread the user posts and find linguistic indicators of thegender of the user.Like many other languages, Arabic conjugates verbsthrough numerous prefixes and suffixes and the gender issometimes clearly marked such as in the case of the verbsending in taa marbuTa which is usually of femininegender.In order to annotate the users for their age, we used threecategories: under 20 years, between 20 years and 40 years,and 40 years and up.In our guidelines, we asked our annotators to try their bestto annotate the exact age, for example, they can check theeducation history of the users in LinkedIn and Facebookprofile and find when the graduated from high school forexample in order to guess the age of the users. As the dialect and the regions are known in advance to theannotators, we instructed them to double check and markthe cases when the profile appears to be from a differentdialect group. This is possible despite our initial filteringbased on distinctive regional keywords. We noticed that inmore than 90% the profiles selected belong to the specifieddialect group. Moreover, we asked the annotators to mark and identifyTwitter profiles with a native language other than Arabic,so they are considered as Arabic L2 speakers. In order tohelp the annotators identify those, we instructed them tolook for various cues such as the writing style, the sentence structure, the word order and the spelling errors.AcknowledgementsThis publication was made possible by NPRP grant #9-175-1-033 from the Qatar National Research Fund (a member ofQatar Foundation). The statements made herein are solelythe responsibility of the authors. ReferencesDiab Mona, Aous Mansouri, Martha Palmer, Olga Babko-Malaya, Wajdi Zaghouani, Ann Bies, Mohammed Maamouri. A Pilot Arabic Propbank; LREC 2008, Marrakech, Morocco, May 28-30, 2008.Hawwari, A.; Zaghouani, W.; O»Gorman, T.; Badran, A.; Diab, M., «Building a Lexical Semantic Resource for Arabic Morphological Patterns,» Communications, Signal Processing, and their Applications (ICCSPA), 2013, vol., no., pp.1,6, 12-14 Feb. 2013. Jeblee Serena; Houda Bouamor; Wajdi Zaghouani; Kemal Oflazer. CMUQ@QALB-2014: An SMT-based System for Automatic Arabic Error Correction. In Proceedings of the EMNLP 2014 Workshop on Arabic Natural Language Processing (ANLP), Doha, Qatar, October 2014.Maamouri Mohamed, Ann Bies, Seth Kulick, Wajdi Zaghouani, Dave Graff and Mike Ciul. 2010. From Speech to Trees: Applying Treebank Annotation to Arabic Broadcast News. In Proceedings of LREC 2010, Valetta, Malta, May 17-23, 2010.Maamouri Mohammed, Wajdi Zaghouani, Violetta Cavalli-Sforza, Dave Graff and Mike Ciul. 2012. Developing ARET: An NLP-based Educational Tool Set for Arabic Reading Enhancement. In Proceedings of The 7th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, NAACL-HLT 2012, Montreal, Canada.Obeid Ossama, Wajdi Zaghouani, Behrang Mohit, Nizar Habash, Kemal Oflazer and Nadi Tomeh. A Web-based Annotation Framework For Large- Scale Text Correction. In Proceedings of IJCNLP'2013, Nagoya, Japan.Zaghouani Wajdi, Nizar Habash, Ossama Obeid, Behrang Mohit, Houda Bouamor, Kemal Oflazer. 2016. Building an arabic machine translation post-edited corpus: Guidelines and annotation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC»2016).Zaghouani Wajdi, Abdelati Hawwari and Mona Diab. 2012. A Pilot PropBank Annotation for Quranic Arabic. In Proceedings of the first workshop on Computational Linguistics for Literature, NAACL-HLT 2012, Montreal, Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.057
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.183
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0570.183
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0170.013
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0110.014
Open science0.0060.011
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.055

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 head0.237
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAuthorship Attribution and ProfilingFrench-language works237,207