Analyzing Persuasive Strategies in Meme Texts: A Fusion of Language Models with Paraphrase Enrichment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes our approach to hierarchical multi-label detection of persuasion techniques in meme texts. Our model, developed as a part of the recent SemEval task, is based on fine-tuning individual language models (BERT, XLM-RoBERTa, and mBERT) and leveraging a mean-based ensemble model in addition to dataset augmentation through paraphrase generation from ChatGPT. The scope of the study encompasses enhancing model performance through innovative training techniques and data augmentation strategies. The problem addressed is the effective identification and classification of multiple persuasive techniques in meme texts, a task complicated by the diversity and complexity of such content. The objective of the paper is to improve detection accuracy by refining model training methods and examining the impact of balanced versus unbalanced training datasets. Novelty in the results and discussion lies in the finding that training with paraphrases enhances model performance, yet a balanced training set proves more advantageous than a larger unbalanced one. Additionally, the analysis reveals the potential pitfalls of indiscriminate incorporation of paraphrases from diverse distributions, which can introduce substantial noise. Results with the SemEval 2024 data confirm these insights, demonstrating improved model efficacy with the proposed methods.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".