Klassieke kerstmuziek online dating metas pessoais online dating
In this paper, we start modestly, by attempting to derive just the gender of the authors 1 automatically, purely on the basis of the content of their tweets, using author profiling techniques.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.However, as any collection that is harvested automatically, its usability is reduced by a lack of reliable metadata.In this case, the Twitter profiles of the authors are available, but these consist of freeform text rather than fixed information fields.Please be advised that this information was generated on and may be subject to change.Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal 4 (2014) Submitted 06/2014; Published 12/2014 Gender Recognition on Dutch Tweets Hans van Halteren Nander Speerstra Radboud University Nijmegen, CLS, Linguistics Abstract In this paper, we investigate gender recognition on Dutch Twitter material, using a corpus consisting of the full Tweet production (as far as present in the Twi NL data set) of 600 users (known to be human individuals) over 2011 and We experimented with several authorship profiling techniques and various recognition features, using Tweet text only, in order to determine how well they could 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).
172 For Tweets in Dutch, we first look at the official user interface for the Twi NL data set, Among other things, it shows gender and age statistics for the users producing the tweets found for user specified searches.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.2004), with and without preprocessing the input vectors with Principal Component Analysis (PCA; (Pearson 1901); (Hotelling 1933)).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.With only token unigrams, the recognition accuracy was 80.5%, while using all features together increased this only slightly to 80.6%. (2014) examined about 9 million tweets by 14,000 Twitter users tweeting in American English.
We also varied the recognition features provided to the techniques, using both character and token n-grams.