Who is cher lloyd dating wdw

2009) managed to increase the gender recognition quality to 89.2%, using sentence length, 35 non-dictionary words, and 52 slang words.

The authors do not report the set of slang words, but the non-dictionary words appear to be more related to style than to content, showing that purely linguistic behaviour can contribute information for gender recognition as well.

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

A group which is very active in studying gender recognition (among other traits) on the basis of text is that around Moshe Koppel. 2002) they report gender recognition on formal written texts taken from the British National Corpus (and also give a good overview of previous work), reaching about 80% correct attributions using function words and parts of speech.

For all techniques and features, we ran the same 5-fold cross-validation experiments in order to determine how well they could be used to distinguish between male and female authors of tweets.

In the following sections, we first present some previous work on gender recognition (Section 2). Currently the field is getting an impulse for further development now that vast data sets of user generated data is becoming available. (2012) show that authorship recognition is also possible (to some degree) if the number of candidate authors is as high as 100,000 (as compared to the usually less than ten in traditional studies).

For each blogger, metadata is present, including the blogger s self-provided gender, age, industry and astrological sign. The creators themselves used it for various classification tasks, including gender recognition (Koppel et al. The men, on the other hand, seem to be more interested in computers, leading to important content words like software and game, and correspondingly more determiners and prepositions.

One gets the impression that gender recognition is more sociological than linguistic, showing what women and men were blogging about back in A later study (Goswami et al.

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.

In this case, the Twitter profiles of the authors are available, but these consist of freeform text rather than fixed information fields.

And, obviously, it is unknown to which degree the information that is present is true.

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%.

Leave a Reply