MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W30283642 · doi:10.1002/evl3.9

Hierarchical versus Flat Classification of Emotions in Text

2010· article· en· W30283642 on OpenAlexaff
Diman Ghazi, Diana Inkpen, Stan Śzpakowicz

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTask (project management)Polarity (international relations)Artificial intelligenceNeutralityHierarchical database modelMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)Data miningNatural language processingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We explore the task of automatic classification of texts by the emotions expressed. Our novel method arranges neutrality, polarity and emotions hierarchically. We test the method on two datasets and show that it outperforms the corresponding flat approach, which does not take into account the hierarchical information. The highly imbalanced structure of most of the datasets in this area, particularly the two datasets with which we worked, has a dramatic effect on the performance of classification. The hierarchical approach helps alleviate the effect.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.005

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations69
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorth American Chapter of the Association for Computational LinguisticsSame topicSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningFrench-language works237,207