Evaluating automatic annotation of lexicon-based models for stance detection of M-pox tweets from May 1st to Sep 5th, 2022
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Manually labeling data for supervised learning is time and energy consuming; therefore, lexicon-based models such as VADER and TextBlob are used to automatically label data. However, it is argued that automated labels do not have the accuracy required for training an efficient model. Although automated labeling is frequently used for stance detection, automated stance labels have not been properly evaluated, in the previous works. In this work, to assess the accuracy of VADER and TextBlob automated labels for stance analysis, we first manually label a Twitter, now X, dataset related to M-pox stance detection. We then fine-tune different transformer-based models on the hand-labeled M-pox dataset, and compare their accuracy before and after fine-tuning, with the accuracy of automated labeled data. Our results indicated that the fine-tuned models surpassed the accuracy of VADER and TextBlob automated labels by up to 38% and 72.5%, respectively. Topic modeling further shows that fine-tuning diminished the scope of misclassified tweets to specific sub-topics. We conclude that fine-tuning transformer models on hand-labeled data for stance detection, elevates the accuracy to a superior level that is significantly higher than automated stance detection labels. This study verifies that automated stance detection labels are not reliable for sensitive use-cases such as health-related purposes. Manually labeled data is more convenient for developing Natural Language Processing (NLP) models that study and analyze mass opinions and conversations on social media platforms, during crises such as pandemics and epidemics.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".