Freee chat kamer online dating in guam

14-Apr-2020 05:20

Their highest score when using just text features was 75.5%, testing on all the tweets by each author (with a train set of 3.3 million tweets and a test set of about 418,000 tweets). (2012) used SVMlight to classify gender on Nigerian twitter accounts, with tweets in English, with a minimum of 50 tweets.Their features were hash tags, token unigrams and psychometric measurements provided by the Linguistic Inquiry of Word Count software (LIWC; (Pennebaker et al. Although LIWC appears a very interesting addition, it hardly adds anything to the classification.The age component of the system is described in (Nguyen et al. The authors apply logistic and linear regression on counts of token unigrams occurring at least 10 times in their corpus.The paper does not describe the gender component, but the first author has informed us that the accuracy of the gender recognition on the basis of 200 tweets is about 87% (Nguyen, personal communication). (2014) did a crowdsourcing experiment, in which they asked human participants to guess the gender and age on the basis of 20 to 40 tweets. on this, we will still take the biological gender as the gold standard in this paper, as our eventual goal is creating metadata for the Twi NL collection. Experimental Data and Evaluation In this section, we first describe the corpus that we used in our experiments (Section 3.1).

With lexical N-grams, they reached an accuracy of 67.7%, which the combination with the sociolinguistic features increased to 72.33%. (2011) attempted to recognize gender in tweets from a whole set of languages, using word and character N-grams as features for machine learning with Support Vector Machines (SVM), Naive Bayes and Balanced Winnow2.

When using all user tweets, they reached an accuracy of 88.0%.

An interesting observation is that there is a clear class of misclassified users who have a majority of opposite gender users in their social network. When adding more information sources, such as profile fields, they reach an accuracy of 92.0%.

For our experiment, we selected 600 authors for whom we were able to determine with a high degree of certainty a) that they were human individuals and b) what gender they were.

We then experimented with several author profiling techniques, namely Support Vector Regression (as provided by LIBSVM; (Chang and Lin 2011)), Linguistic Profiling (LP; (van Halteren 2004)), and Ti MBL (Daelemans et al.

With lexical N-grams, they reached an accuracy of 67.7%, which the combination with the sociolinguistic features increased to 72.33%. (2011) attempted to recognize gender in tweets from a whole set of languages, using word and character N-grams as features for machine learning with Support Vector Machines (SVM), Naive Bayes and Balanced Winnow2.

When using all user tweets, they reached an accuracy of 88.0%.

An interesting observation is that there is a clear class of misclassified users who have a majority of opposite gender users in their social network. When adding more information sources, such as profile fields, they reach an accuracy of 92.0%.

For our experiment, we selected 600 authors for whom we were able to determine with a high degree of certainty a) that they were human individuals and b) what gender they were.

We then experimented with several author profiling techniques, namely Support Vector Regression (as provided by LIBSVM; (Chang and Lin 2011)), Linguistic Profiling (LP; (van Halteren 2004)), and Ti MBL (Daelemans et al.

In this paper we restrict ourselves to gender recognition, and it is also this aspect we will discuss further in this section.