MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963881255

Cross-Lingual Sentiment Analysis Without (Good) Translation

2017· article· en· W2963881255 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

VenueInternational Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceLeverage (statistics)Natural language processingSentiment analysisArtificial intelligenceMachine translationWord (group theory)Translation (biology)Set (abstract data type)Context (archaeology)Linguistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current approaches to cross-lingual sentiment analysis try to leverage the wealth of labeled English data using bilingual lexicons, bilingual vector space embeddings, or machine translation systems. Here we show that it is possible to use a single linear transformation, with as few as 2000 word pairs, to capture fine-grained sentiment relationships between words in a cross-lingual setting. We apply these cross-lingual sentiment models to a diverse set of tasks to demonstrate their functionality in a non-English context. By effectively leveraging English sentiment knowledge without the need for accurate translation, we can analyze and extract features from other languages with scarce data at a very low cost, thus making sentiment and related analyses for many languages inexpensive.

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 categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.320 · 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