Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Computational Modeling of People’s Opinions, Personality, and Emotions in Social Media
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The idea of organizing PEOPLES stemmed from two related observations, namely the availability of large amounts of spontaneous data covering a range of personal aspects and the fact that such aspects are usually studied in isolation. Social media users nowadays freely express what is on their mind at any moment in time, at any location, and about virtually anything. These large amounts of spontaneously produced texts open up a unique opportunity to learn more about such users, e.g., predicting demographic variables (age, gender), but also personality types, as well as emotions and opinion expressions. This observation is not new, of course, and this opportunity has largely been exploited in the recent years, with abundant works on sentiment analysis, emotion detection, and personality. However, such traits of human personality and behavior have indeed attracted a substantial amount of attention but have been mostly studied in isolation, often in different -but related -communities, such as NLP, CL, AI. Therefore, we thought that the time was ripe to bring these communities a step closer to study people's traits and expressions jointly and in their interplay on such large volumes of available data.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it