MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3098931820 · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.nlpcss-1.5

I miss you babe: Analyzing Emotion Dynamics During COVID-19 Pandemic

2020· article· en· W3098931820 on OpenAlexaff
Hui Xian Lynnette Ng, Roy Ka-Wei Lee, Md Rabiul Awal

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisgustAngerTransition (genetics)Sentiment analysisEmotion classificationDynamics (music)Construct (python library)PsychologyCognitive psychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the world on a lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this paper studies emotions expressed on Twitter. Using a combined strategy of time series analysis of emotions augmented by tweet topics, this study provides an insight into emotion transitions during the pandemic. After tweets are annotated with dominant emotions and topics, a timeseries emotion analysis is used to identify disgust and anger as the most commonly identified emotions. Through longitudinal analysis of each user, we construct emotion transition graphs, observing key transitions between disgust and anger, and self-transitions within anger and disgust emotional states. Observing user patterns through clustering of user longitudinal analyses reveals emotional transitions fall into four main clusters: (1) erratic motion over short period of time, (2) disgust anger, (3) optimism joy. (4) erratic motion over a prolonged period. Finally, we propose a method for predicting users subsequent topic, and by consequence their emotions, through constructing an Emotion Topic Hidden Markov Model, augmenting emotion transition states with topic information. Results suggests that the predictions fare better than baselines, spurring directions of predicting emotional states based on Twitter posts.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.292
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningFrench-language works237,207