Analyzing Language Bias Between French and English in Conventional Multilingual Sentiment Analysis Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inspired by the 'Bias Considerations in Bilingual Natural Language Processing' report by Statistics Canada, this study delves into potential biases in multilingual sentiment analysis between English and French. Given a 50-50 dataset of French and English, we aim to determine if there exists a language bias and explore how the incorporation of more diverse datasets in the future might affect the equity of multilingual Natural Language Processing (NLP) systems. By employing Support Vector Machine (SVM) and Naive Bayes models on three balanced datasets, we reveal potential biases in multilingual sentiment classification. Utilizing Fairlearn, a tool for assessing bias in machine learning models, our findings indicate nuanced outcomes. With French data outperforming English across accuracy, recall, and F1 score metrics in both models, hinting at a language bias favoring French. However, Fairlearn's metrics suggest that the SVM approaches equitable levels with a demographic parity ratio of 0.963, 0.989, and 0.985 for the three separate datasets, indicating near-equitable treatment across languages. In contrast, Naive Bayes demonstrates greater disparities, evidenced by a demographic parity ratio of 0.813, 0.908, and 0.961. These findings reveal the importance of developing equitable multilingual NLP systems, particularly as we anticipate the inclusion of more datasets in various languages in the future.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".