File size: 108,469 Bytes
6fa4bc9 |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 |
{
"paper_id": "2021",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T06:07:04.770625Z"
},
"title": "Emotion Ratings: How Intensity, Annotation Confidence and Agreements are Entangled",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Enrica",
"middle": [],
"last": "Troiano",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Sprachverarbeitung University of Stuttgart",
"location": {
"country": "Germany"
}
},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Sebastian",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pad\u00f3",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Sprachverarbeitung University of Stuttgart",
"location": {
"country": "Germany"
}
},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Roman",
"middle": [],
"last": "Klinger",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Sprachverarbeitung University of Stuttgart",
"location": {
"country": "Germany"
}
},
"email": ""
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "When humans judge the affective content of texts, they also implicitly assess the correctness of such judgment, that is, their confidence. We hypothesize that people's (in)confidence that they performed well in an annotation task leads to (dis)agreements among each other. If this is true, confidence may serve as a diagnostic tool for systematic differences in annotations. To probe our assumption, we conduct a study on a subset of the Corpus of Contemporary American English, in which we ask raters to distinguish neutral sentences from emotionbearing ones, while scoring the confidence of their answers. Confidence turns out to approximate inter-annotator disagreements. Further, we find that confidence is correlated to emotion intensity: perceiving stronger affect in text prompts annotators to more certain classification performances. This insight is relevant for modelling studies of intensity, as it opens the question wether automatic regressors or classifiers actually predict intensity, or rather human's self-perceived confidence.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "2021",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "When humans judge the affective content of texts, they also implicitly assess the correctness of such judgment, that is, their confidence. We hypothesize that people's (in)confidence that they performed well in an annotation task leads to (dis)agreements among each other. If this is true, confidence may serve as a diagnostic tool for systematic differences in annotations. To probe our assumption, we conduct a study on a subset of the Corpus of Contemporary American English, in which we ask raters to distinguish neutral sentences from emotionbearing ones, while scoring the confidence of their answers. Confidence turns out to approximate inter-annotator disagreements. Further, we find that confidence is correlated to emotion intensity: perceiving stronger affect in text prompts annotators to more certain classification performances. This insight is relevant for modelling studies of intensity, as it opens the question wether automatic regressors or classifiers actually predict intensity, or rather human's self-perceived confidence.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "A plethora of theories exist on the matter of emotions: the intensity of affective states, their link to cognition, and their arrangement into categories are just a few of the angles from which psychology has tackled this complex phenomenon (Gendron and Feldman Barrett, 2009) . Correspondingly, in computational emotion analysis, texts have been associated to values of intensity (Strapparava and Mihalcea, 2007; Mohammad and Bravo-Marquez, 2017) , to cognitive components (Hofmann et al., 2020) , and discrete classes (Zhang et al., 2018; Zhong et al., 2019, i.a.) . In support of these tasks, substantial research effort has been directed to resource construction, which typically relies on the participation of human judges. Yet, emotions are a subjective experience. Their interpretation in text varies across individuals, and this poses a major challenge in emotion analysis: it is hard to reach acceptable levels of inter-annotator agreement (IAA) (Bobicev and Sokolova, 2017; Schuff et al., 2017; Troiano et al., 2019) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 241,
"end": 276,
"text": "(Gendron and Feldman Barrett, 2009)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 381,
"end": 413,
"text": "(Strapparava and Mihalcea, 2007;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF28"
},
{
"start": 414,
"end": 447,
"text": "Mohammad and Bravo-Marquez, 2017)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
},
{
"start": 474,
"end": 496,
"text": "(Hofmann et al., 2020)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 520,
"end": 540,
"text": "(Zhang et al., 2018;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF31"
},
{
"start": 541,
"end": 566,
"text": "Zhong et al., 2019, i.a.)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 955,
"end": 983,
"text": "(Bobicev and Sokolova, 2017;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 984,
"end": 1004,
"text": "Schuff et al., 2017;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
},
{
"start": 1005,
"end": 1026,
"text": "Troiano et al., 2019)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF30"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "On their side, humans (roughly) know how well they can \"read\" emotions (Realo et al., 2003) . They judge the affective content of texts, and at the same time, the correctness of such judgment: in other words, annotators can evaluate their own confidence with respect to their labelling decisions. This hints a possible relation between confidence and IAA. One could expect that annotators are more likely to incur inconsistencies when they feel uncertain about their answers. Hence, it would be interesting to verify if self-assessed confidence approximates inter-annotator disagreements in affectrelated annotation tasks. The collection of this type of judgments is not a common practice: past research has found that self-assigned scores of confidence are predictable based on some vocal attributes of emotion speech stimuli (Lausen and Hammerschmidt, 2020) , but this has not been done on text, to the best of our knowledge.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 91,
"text": "(Realo et al., 2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
},
{
"start": 827,
"end": 859,
"text": "(Lausen and Hammerschmidt, 2020)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Yet another aspect involved in emotion recognition and which, at first sight, relates to confidence, is emotion intensity. It would be intuitive to assume that emotions are recognized with higher confidence if they are expressed with stronger magnitude (e.g., \"The teacher exploded\" > \"He snapped his annoyed temper\", \"sadder\" > \"a bit sad\", \"ecstasy\" > \"joy\"). Still, in the sentence \"We had to cheer him up; later, he was off the ground\", readers have to choose what part of the text to attend to (the challenge that the speakers undertook -not intense, or the effect they had -intense) and be very confident about either choice. Similar counter examples reveal that the link between the perception of emotion intensity and the self-perceived confidence is opaque, and leaves room for exploration.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "In this paper, we experimentally investigate the relationship between three human judgments: about the presence of emotions, about their intensity, and about the confidence of the annotation decision. Leveraging such information, we aim at understanding in what cases annotators differ regarding the judgement that an emotion is expressed. Our first research question is: (RQ1) Are (dis)agreements with respect to the presence of emotions related to confidence? Second, (RQ2) Are judgments of intensity and confidence entangled? We bring these issues together in an annotation study based on emotion recognition, in which self-perceived confidence is a dimension to be rated. Given a subset of the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) (Davies, 2015) , raters distinguish emotionbearing sentences from neutral ones, while quantifying both the intensity of the emotion and their confidence on a Likert scale (B\u00e8gue et al., 2018) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 745,
"end": 759,
"text": "(Davies, 2015)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 916,
"end": 936,
"text": "(B\u00e8gue et al., 2018)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "We find that confidence can explain systematic differences in decisions of annotators; so does intensity; and impressions on intensity and confidence are correlated. Based on these results, we devise a strategy to leverage the two factors and smoothen out inter-annotator inconsistencies.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Tasks. The first step in this study is to collect emotion assessments. 1 We are not interested in which emotion people interpret from text, but rather if they recognize any. Judges read sentences and answer the question: (EMO) Is it Emotional or Neutral? For the items deemed to express an emotion, we also ask (INT) How strong is it?, which enables us to obtain ratings about affective strengths on a Likert scale from 1 (not intense) to 3 (very). Lastly, since raters interpret emotions without an immediate first-hand experience, we have them self-evaluate their own judgments on a scale from 1 (unsure) to 3 (certain), in response to the question (CONF) How confident are you about your answer to EMO?",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 72,
"text": "1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Annotation Setup",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "As for EMO, we acknowledge that the emotional content of an utterance can be inferred from many perspectives. It is possible to assess one's own emotion after reading the text, to reconstruct the affective state of the writers who produced it, to guess the reaction that they intended to elicit in the readers, and so on. To avoid confusion, we instruct annotators to consider the presence of an emotion only with respect to their personal viewpoint.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Annotation Setup",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "We opt for an in-lab setting. Raters are three female master students aged between 24 and 27, who are proficient in English, and have some annotation experience and background in computational emotion analysis.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Annotation Setup",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Data. Corpora that include emotion classes or gradations are tailored on specific domains, like self-reports (Scherer and Wallbott, 1997) , tweets (Mohammad, 2018) and newspapers (Strapparava and Mihalcea, 2008) . We broaden our focus to multiple genres, and annotate sentences from the 2020 version of COCA 2 , which includes unlabelled texts that occurred from 1990 to present in different domains, like blogs, magazines, newspapers, academic texts, spoken interactions, fictions, TV, and movie subtitles.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 109,
"end": 137,
"text": "(Scherer and Wallbott, 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 163,
"text": "(Mohammad, 2018)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 211,
"text": "(Strapparava and Mihalcea, 2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF29"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Annotation Setup",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "With a corpus of this size (>1B words), considering all data points would be costly, and randomly selecting them may cause imbalance in the final annotation -i.e., a majority of neutral instances. Therefore, we draw a sample biased towards emotional sentences with a combination of rules and classifier-based information. To obtain such a classifier, we fine-tune the pre-trained BERT (Devlin et al., 2019 ) base-case model on a number of emotion analysis resources 3 , adding a classification layer that outputs the labels emotion or neutral. Having that, we filter academic texts out of COCA for their arguably impartial language, and from each of the other genres, we randomly pick 500 sentences; out of these, we sample 100 sentences balanced by class, i.e., 50 labelled as neutral by our classifier, 50 as bearing an emotion. Thus, the annotators are shown 700 items, 100 per domain, with a balanced class distribution, according to the classifier.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 385,
"end": 405,
"text": "(Devlin et al., 2019",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Annotation Setup",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "To answer our research questions, we first observe annotators' agreements on EMO. The highest Cohen's \u03ba (1960) between pairs of human judges was .43 (Table 1a) ; Fleiss' \u03ba (1971) for the three annotators was .34.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 94,
"end": 110,
"text": "Cohen's \u03ba (1960)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 178,
"text": "Fleiss' \u03ba (1971)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 149,
"end": 159,
"text": "(Table 1a)",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "At first glance, these numbers appear unsatisfactory. On the one hand, they are due to the skewed class distribution in the annotators' choices. 4 the other, they can be traced back to the way in which the EMO task was formulated: asking if a text is emotional from the readers' own point of view (e.g., it \"describes an event [...] to which you would associate an emotion\", see Appendix) as opposed, for instance, to the writers', paves the way for more heterogeneous responses. However, a look at other IAA measures, like the absolute counts of items that were assigned to each label, leads to a more detailed picture. Table 1b breaks down the annotated categories by agreement: column 1 vs. 2 corresponds to the groups of items on which 1 annotator chose a label, while the majority opted for the other; column 3 vs. 0 shows how many times all three annotators agreed. We see that 138 sentences out of 700 were deemed emotionally charged by only 1 person (and hence, were associated to neutral by the two others). 2 annotators picked the emotion class for 170 sentences, i.e., those which were neutral according to just 1 rater. Overall, as the amount of considered judgments increases, so does their intersubjective validity about emotions. This tendency is clear in column 3 vs. 0, which shows that there were more emotional instances with 3 identical labels than those with conflicting ratings. Indeed, perfect agreement was reached for 392 items (304 emotion and 88 neutral), more than half the data, suggesting that people had a shared understanding.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 145,
"end": 146,
"text": "4",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 621,
"end": 629,
"text": "Table 1b",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "(and so does Intensity)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Confidence Approximates Disagreements",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "We next focus on the items that received incoherent judgments. Annotators seem to diverge on the presence/absence of emotions in a systematic way. Specifically, their inconsistencies correspond to certain patterns in the ratings of confidence, as well as intensity. Taking pairs of annotators, we see that the one who picks the emotion class tends to do that with low confidence. 5 As an example representative of the general trend, on 11 sentences annotator A3 makes the neutral choice, while annotator A1 picks emotion, but rates such items with confidence 1 (5 sentences), or 2 (6 sentences) -never using the highest degree of confidence. The same holds for intensity: A1 rates 10 of the 11 sentences as having the lowest intensity, and 1 sentence as having intensity 2 -none with the highest intensity value.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 380,
"end": 381,
"text": "5",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Confidence Approximates Disagreements",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Hence, to answer RQ1, the evaluation of intensity and the self-evaluation of confidence underlie disagreements in discrete emotion annotations. Further, they show that different intuitions are not totally incompatible, since the annotator who takes the emotion decision does so without being extremely confident, and gauging intensity as rather weak.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Confidence Approximates Disagreements",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "We corroborate this finding by looking at a more standard measure of IAA, namely Fleiss' \u03ba, which turns out to be affected by both CONF and INT. We compute it once more for the answers of EMO, but here we consider to be emotional only the items on which all annotators choose a certain level of confidence or intensity. Table 1c displays \u03ba separately for different levels (rows) of CONF and INT. Low values aside, these results inform us that the lower CONF/INT, the more prominent are disagreements. The highest IAA (.39), instead, is achieved for the most confident answers.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 320,
"end": 328,
"text": "Table 1c",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Confidence Approximates Disagreements",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Post-Processing Disagreements. If systematic differences among annotators can be diagnosed with the help of confidence and intensity, can they also be resolved to some extent? We use the CONF and INT scores as acceptance thresholds for the label emotion, so to post-process the EMO decisions of each judge: they turn into neutral if the corresponding CONF or INT answer does not reach a certain threshold t. For instance, using INT as thres- hold, with t<2 all items labeled emotion in EMO are kept as such only in case the INT is 2 or more, all the others are mapped to neutral. Agreement counts on the post-processed annotation of EMO are in Table 2 . We see, again, that the number of agreed upon items increases by increasing the sets of equal ratings. For instance, 283 sentences received 2 unanimous judgments (column 1 vs. 2, under EMO INT<2), and 417 received 3. In comparison to the original annotation in Table 1b , we can observe a considerable change in the number of items with perfect agreement. While in the raw judgments they were 392, with t<3 they increase to 626. We find a similar pattern when leveraging confidence: with t<2 (low confidence), it is obtained for 359 items, and with t<3 (moderate), perfect agreement increases to 486 items.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 644,
"end": 651,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF3"
},
{
"start": 915,
"end": 923,
"text": "Table 1b",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Confidence Approximates Disagreements",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "This comes at the cost of agreeing on fewer emotion sentences (304 before filtering, 7 and 56 after applying the highest threshold to INT and CONF), but it indicates that the better raters agree on intensity or confidence, the more they agree regarding the presence or absence of emotions.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Confidence Approximates Disagreements",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Having found that confidence and intensity have a similar relationship to disagreements, we move to analyzing how they link to one another. To address RQ2, we focus on the ratings of the 304 sentences with the unanimous emotion judgment. For them, we compute the intra-annotator correlation between the answers to INT and the corresponding ratings of CONF. A Spearman's \u03c1 (Spearman, 1904) of .5 for annotator A1, .58 for A2 and .64 for A3 (p-value <.05 for all) reveals a significant positive correlati-",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 372,
"end": 388,
"text": "(Spearman, 1904)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Stronger Intensity, Higher Confidence",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "Ann2 Ann3",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Ann1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Conf 1 Conf 2 Conf 3 Int 2 Int 3 Int 1 Int 2 Int 3 Int 1 Int 2 Int 3 Int 1 Figure 1 : Cross-tabulation of INT and CONF by annotator, for the items that each of them deems emotional.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 63,
"text": "1 Conf 2 Conf 3 Int 2 Int 3 Int 1 Int 2 Int 3 Int 1",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 90,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Ann1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "on between intensity and confidence. This suggests that people believe they correctly classified a text if they also perceived high emotion intensity. Figure 1 gives an in-depth account of the CONF-INT relation. It plots the counts of items that were labeled with a certain emotion intensity together with a certain confidence level, separately for each annotator. The columns INT3 tell us that rarely annotators perceive intensity as strong without being extremely confident that the text expresses an emotion. In fact, no instance was rated with the highest intensity and the lowest confidence (INT3-CONF1) at the same time. Conversely, for cases of low intensity, annotators tend to stay low also on the scale of confidence.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 151,
"end": 159,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Ann1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "On what do People Agree? On the 304 sentences considered emotional by all, if the annotators gave the same score to intensity (i.e., perfect agreement is both on EMO and INT), they did not have a total disagreement on confidence (i.e., there are always at least 2 people with the same CONF) and vice versa. This may be a sign of the correlation between the two variables.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Ann1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Moreover, some items were scored with perfect agreement on all questions. It is the case of sentences like \"I can't believe that you saved my life\", considered, with the highest level of confidence, to convey an emotion of intensity 3, \"Get off my back!\" deemed to have a mild intensity, and \",,You have such an interesting life,\" she said, after a little small talk\" with intensity 1. While these examples are rated as highly certain (CONF3), there are also sentences on which people agree across all confidence-intensity combinations. 6 None of the instances has CONF1 and INT3, while a number of examples have CONF3 and INT1, indicating that it is harder to be uncertain of a strong emotion than to be sure of a weak one.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Ann1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "This annotation investigated if the perceived emotion (class), a perceived feature of emotion (intensity), and self-perception (confidence) are tied together -and can help understand inconsistent annotations. We found that (RQ1) both intensity and confidence account for inter-annotator inconsistencies relative to binary decisions. Adopting confidence as an acceptance threshold showed that higher scores lead to more uniform assessments of emotions; though not a surprising effect of confidence, this also applies to intensity. Moreover, (RQ2) the two variables are correlated, that is, people feel more certain about their emotion recognition performance on items with high intensity.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion and Conclusion",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "We acknowledge that our design of EMO naturally incurs the risk of inconsistent answers. However, precisely for the subjective nature of the task, the finding that disagreements decrease with high CONF/INT is interesting in itself: some judgments which are seemingly unsolvable can be explained by certain perceived properties of emotions (intensity) or self-perceived features (confidence).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion and Conclusion",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "From these results we can draw some lessons. First, the correlation between confidence and intensity brings relevant implications to all those studies that focus on emotional strength. When asked to evaluate intensity, do people confound that with confidence? Even more, is there a causal relation between the two? As a best practice to put safeguards in their guidelines, experimenters may ask people to tease the two variables apart. Potentially, this issue concerns modelling studies as well: do classifiers for emotion intensity predict such feature, or rather the confidence with which people judge emotions? We provided reasons to look into this further.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion and Conclusion",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Second, confidence turned out to be an important dimension of rating, because it can inform us when the annotators expect to disagree. When judgments diverge, annotators do not deem their intuition credible. Hence, our finding that confidence approximates disagreements means precisely that people themselves predict their performance to differ from that of the others.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion and Conclusion",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Concretely, all this knowledge can come in support of annotation studies. Including confidence as a rating dimension may give an additional source of information about annotators' reliability. This can help experimenters to refine the guidelines in a pre-testing phase: one might want to disentan-gle cases in which annotators' disagreements are random -signaling a lack of annotators' reliability, and when, instead, they are due to consistently different ways of perceiving and reporting on confidence. In this second case, disagreements may be normalized to an extent, by post-processing the annotation results. For instance, as people seem to agree on the class emotion only if they also agree on certain degrees of CONF, there might be some levels of confidence (or intensity) that one filters in/out of the final annotation labels.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion and Conclusion",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "A similar strategy may be somewhat restrictive, since it accepts as emotional only those items on which humans' intuition fall above a pre-defined threshold. While we observed agreement on such items, it is possible to adopt more nuanced evaluation approaches and integrate information about intensity or confidence into IAA measures. As an example, disagreements between two raters can be penalized more when the one choosing the emotion label does so by perceiving extreme confidence or intensity -even though we provided evidence that these cases are rare. Future work could explore this direction.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion and Conclusion",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "In summary, we uphold that disagreements are not necessarily symptomatic of unreliability. This claim has so far not found much attention in emotion annotations, but is in line with a more general body of research dedicated to the reasons and the patterns underlying annotators' disagreements and to the ways in which their intuitions should be aggregated and evaluated (Bayerl and Paul, 2011; Bhardwaj et al., 2010; Qing et al., 2014; Peldszus and Stede, 2013; Plank et al., 2014; Sommerauer et al., 2020, i.a.) . The applicability of these ideas to emotions should not come as a surprise -their assessment can derive from perceptive and metaperceptual phenomena (intensity and confidence, for instance). Therefore, if emotion judgments alone might not be sufficient to measure the quality of annotations, they can be enriched and, eventually, explained by the knowledge of such phenomena.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 370,
"end": 393,
"text": "(Bayerl and Paul, 2011;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 394,
"end": 416,
"text": "Bhardwaj et al., 2010;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 417,
"end": 435,
"text": "Qing et al., 2014;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
},
{
"start": 436,
"end": 461,
"text": "Peldszus and Stede, 2013;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
},
{
"start": 462,
"end": 481,
"text": "Plank et al., 2014;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
},
{
"start": 482,
"end": 512,
"text": "Sommerauer et al., 2020, i.a.)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion and Conclusion",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "In what follows are the detailed guidelines of the annotation. Q1 corresponds to EMO in the paper, Q2 corresponds to CONF, and Q3 to INT.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A Annotation Guidelines",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In Q1, annotators were required to disregard the emotion that the author of the utterances intended to express or to elicit in others. Their task was to give their immediate, personal impression with respect to the presence of an emotion.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A Annotation Guidelines",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Before annotating the 700 sentences selected from COCA, we observe inter-annotator agreement on a pre-annotation trial. With 70 sentences, Cohen's \u03ba for pairs of annotators was found to be satisfactory (.52, .6 and .43) and motivated us to complete the job on the rest of the sentences. The job was completed upon a compensation of 60e.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 202,
"end": 219,
"text": "(.52, .6 and .43)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A Annotation Guidelines",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In this annotation trial, you will assess if texts are emotional or neutral.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A.1 Task Description Approx Duration: 3 hours",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Neutral sentences are those which 1. bear no affective connotation. A war started in Westeros. The king found an old sausage under his bed.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A.1 Task Description Approx Duration: 3 hours",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "I am so happy to see you. She was bursting with arrogance. And there she was, desperate for her family. I couldn't stand the catering food, bleark!",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Examples of 3. are:",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "You will be shown individual sentences and, for each of them, you will answer 3 questions (Q1, Q2, Q3). Go for your immediate reaction to the text -avoid over-assessments.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A.2 Guidelines",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Q1 Given a sentence, please ask yourself: is it emotional (E) or neutral (N)? Type:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A.2 Guidelines",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 N, if the text does not convey any emotion, like in Examples of 1.;",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A.2 Guidelines",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 E, if an emotion could be inferred from the text, like in Examples of 2., or an emotion is a central part of the text, like in Examples of 3.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A.2 Guidelines",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Q2 Ask yourself: how confident am I about my answer to Q1? Give yourself a rating on a scale from 1 to 3. Indicate if you are",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A.2 Guidelines",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 1, not confident at all;",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A.2 Guidelines",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 2, confident;",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A.2 Guidelines",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 3, sure.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A.2 Guidelines",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Q3 This question only applies if you answered 2 or 3 in Q1: in case the sentence expresses an emotion, how strong is such emotion? Assess the degree of its intensity on a scale from 1 to 3, where",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A.2 Guidelines",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 1 is mild;",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A.2 Guidelines",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 2 is intense;",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A.2 Guidelines",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 3 is very intense.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A.2 Guidelines",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "After data pre-processing step (i.e. exclusion of academic texts and sentences containing words that are masked for copyright reasons), we use a binary classifier as a guide for the selection of sentences from COCA. Using HugginFace 7 , we fine-tune the pre-trained BERT base-case model on data for emotion recognition, adding a classification layer that outputs the labels emotion or neutral. Data are the resources by Liu et al. (2007) , Troiano et al. (2019) , Scherer and Wallbott (1997), Alm et al. (2005) , Li et al. (2017) , Ghazi et al. (2015) , Mohammad and Bravo-Marquez (2017) , (Mohammad, 2012) and Schuff et al. (2017) . We make their format homogeneous with the tool made available by Bostan and Klinger (2018) ; next, as the labels in the resulting unified emotion data (UED) are not binary, we map neutral and no emotion instances into neutral, and the rest into emotion. The total 136891 sentences are then split into train (70%), validation (10%) and test (20%) sets. Classifier's performance is in Table 3 .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 420,
"end": 437,
"text": "Liu et al. (2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 440,
"end": 461,
"text": "Troiano et al. (2019)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF30"
},
{
"start": 464,
"end": 475,
"text": "Scherer and",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
},
{
"start": 476,
"end": 510,
"text": "Wallbott (1997), Alm et al. (2005)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 513,
"end": 529,
"text": "Li et al. (2017)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 532,
"end": 551,
"text": "Ghazi et al. (2015)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 554,
"end": 587,
"text": "Mohammad and Bravo-Marquez (2017)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
},
{
"start": 590,
"end": 606,
"text": "(Mohammad, 2012)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
},
{
"start": 611,
"end": 631,
"text": "Schuff et al. (2017)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
},
{
"start": 699,
"end": 724,
"text": "Bostan and Klinger (2018)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 1017,
"end": 1024,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": "TABREF5"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "B Binary Classification",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "C Further Analysis C.1 Disagreements Table 4 reports the distribution of the scores of confidence and intensity for the items where the annotators disagree. This is observed on annotator pairs. A row considers all those items on which either annotators (on the columns) chooses the emotion label and the other selects the neutral one. For instance, A1-A2 disagree in total 201 times: on 24 sentences, A1 makes the emotion choice, and on 177 sentences it is A2 who picks the class emotion. Out of the 24 items, A1 rated 23 as having low intensity and 1 as medium intensity; out of the 177 sentences, 149 are considered of low intensity by A2, 27 as mild, and only 1 as highly intense.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 44,
"text": "Table 4",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "B Binary Classification",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "What emerges overall is that people rarely disagree when the emotion-leaning annotator has extreme confidence, or perceives very high intensity.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "B Binary Classification",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "A manual analysis of the annotations reveals that perfect agreement occurs in the presence of certain patterns. Items unanimously considered emotional often report personal impressions about state of affairs or the speakers' interlocutors (e.g., \"Paris is so sexy\", \"Your expression changed from excited puppy to crestfallen\"), and mostly involve first-hand experiences of the speakers themselves (e.g., \"We'll miss you, but we'll be watching\", \"I'm afraid I don't see anything very beautiful right now\", \"Others helped me and it made a huge difference\"). Instead, sentences that received 3 neutral labels seem to be centered on factual statements, like \"Furthermore, the types of materials of manufacture are different\", \"They continue walking\".",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "C.2 Agreements",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "One difference between the emotion and neutral labels is the frequency of agreement, as we found that people concur more on the former -and this invalidates our expectation that, not being given a varied set of affective categories, and not identifying what emotion they are judging, people would tend to resort to the neutral choice. Moreover, annotators converge more on one or more on the other label depending on the genre of a text: looking at the distribution of the 304 unanimous emotions (magazine: 28 sentences, blogs: 44, news: 27, tv: 67, fiction: 54, spoken: 39, web: 45) and the 88 neutrals (magazine: 18 sentences, blogs: 12, news: 22, tv: 4, fiction: 5, spoken: 12, web: 15), we see that people recognize that affect often manifests itself in fictions, for instance, but is rarer in newsthe opposite holds for the neutral expressions. An obvious strategy to recognize emotions would be to find an emotion name in text. But this is not the case. Sentences that contain emotion words considered less emotionally intense than others: the majority of sentences with CONF3-INT2 contain emotion words (e.g.,\"I was sad to leave.\", while those with CONF3-INT3 are related to extremely negative states of mind (e.g.,\" [...] if I could die and bring her back , I would , but I can't , and I have to deal with that now\").",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 1224,
"end": 1229,
"text": "[...]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "C.2 Agreements",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In Table 5 , we report some example sentences on which annotators reached perfect agreement across all confidence-intensity combinations, having choosen the label emotion. The sentences are extracted from a number of genres in COCA, and are associated to different scores of intensity (INT) and confidence (CONF). Note that there is no instance that elicited a high intensity evaluation (3) and a low confidence (either 2 or 3) in the annotators. Instances of CONF3 and INT1 show that the correlation between confidence and intensity, though intuitive, has counterexamples.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 10,
"text": "Table 5",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "C.2 Agreements",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The guidelines are in the Appendix. Our data is accessible at https://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/ data/emotion-confidence.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/ 3 Details and classifier's performance in Appendix.4 With skewed class distribution, chance agreement increases, penalizing the resulting \u03ba (Cicchetti and Feinstein, 1990).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Ratings on disagreements are in Appendix,Table 4.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "A detailed analysis is inTable 5, Appendix.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "This work was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (project CEAT, KL 2869/1-2) and the Leibniz WissenschaftsCampus T\u00fcbingen \"Cognitive Interfaces\". We thank Laura Oberl\u00e4nder, Agnieszka Fale\u0144ska and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Acknowledgements",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "A2 A3 CONF INT CONF INT CONF INT 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 A1-A2 15 8 1 23 1 0 54 95 28 149 27 1 ------A2-A3 ------13 25 6 37 7 0 56 61 3 94 26 0 A3-A1 5 6 0 10 1 0 ------95 128 17 169 70 1 Magazine 1 2 Nature always solves her own problems ; and we can go far toward solving our own if we will listen to her teachings and consort with those who love her. Web 3 3 I will completely destroy them and make them an object of horror and scorn , and an everlasting ruin. Spoken 3 3 \"We 're very worried .\"",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 80,
"text": "A3 CONF INT CONF INT CONF INT 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "If -if I could die and bring her back , I would , but I can't , and I have to deal with that now. ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Spoken 3 3",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Emotions from text: Machine learning for text-based emotion prediction",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Cecilia",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ovesdotter Alm",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Dan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Roth",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Richard",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sproat",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Proceedings of Human Language Technology Conference and Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "579--586",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Cecilia Ovesdotter Alm, Dan Roth, and Richard Sproat. 2005. Emotions from text: Machine learning for text-based emotion prediction. In Proceedings of Human Language Technology Conference and Con- ference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 579-586, Vancouver, British Co- lumbia, Canada. Association for Computational Lin- guistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "What determines inter-coder agreement in manual annotations? a meta-analytic investigation",
"authors": [],
"year": 2011,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "37",
"issue": "4",
"pages": "699--725",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.1162/COLI_a_00074"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Petra Saskia Bayerl and Karsten Ingmar Paul. 2011. What determines inter-coder agreement in manual annotations? a meta-analytic investigation. Compu- tational Linguistics, 37(4):699-725.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Confidence of emotion expression recognition recruits brain regions outside the face perception network",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Indrit",
"middle": [],
"last": "B\u00e8gue",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Maarten",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vaessen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jeremy",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hofmeister",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Marice",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pereira",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2018,
"venue": "Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience",
"volume": "14",
"issue": "1",
"pages": "81--95",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.1093/scan/nsy102"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Indrit B\u00e8gue, Maarten Vaessen, Jeremy Hofmeister, Marice Pereira, Sophie Schwartz, and Patrik Vuil- leumier. 2018. Confidence of emotion expression recognition recruits brain regions outside the face perception network. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 14(1):81-95.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Anveshan: A framework for analysis of multiple annotators' labeling behavior",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Vikas",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bhardwaj",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Rebecca",
"middle": [],
"last": "Passonneau",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ansaf",
"middle": [],
"last": "Salleb-Aouissi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Nancy",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ide",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2010,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Fourth Linguistic Annotation Workshop",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "47--55",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Vikas Bhardwaj, Rebecca Passonneau, Ansaf Salleb- Aouissi, and Nancy Ide. 2010. Anveshan: A frame- work for analysis of multiple annotators' labeling be- havior. In Proceedings of the Fourth Linguistic An- notation Workshop, pages 47-55, Uppsala, Sweden. Association for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Interannotator agreement in sentiment analysis: Machine learning perspective",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Victoria",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bobicev",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Marina",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sokolova",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2017,
"venue": "Proceedings of the International Conference Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "97--102",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.26615/978-954-452-049-6_015"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Victoria Bobicev and Marina Sokolova. 2017. Inter- annotator agreement in sentiment analysis: Machine learning perspective. In Proceedings of the Interna- tional Conference Recent Advances in Natural Lan- guage Processing, RANLP 2017, pages 97-102, Var- na, Bulgaria. INCOMA Ltd.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "An analysis of annotated corpora for emotion classification in text",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Laura-Ana-Maria",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bostan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Roman",
"middle": [],
"last": "Klinger",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2018,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "2104--2119",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Laura-Ana-Maria Bostan and Roman Klinger. 2018. An analysis of annotated corpora for emotion clas- sification in text. In Proceedings of the 27th Inter- national Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 2104-2119, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. As- sociation for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "High agreement but low kappa: Ii. resolving the paradoxes",
"authors": [
{
"first": "V",
"middle": [],
"last": "Domenic",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cicchetti",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Alvan R Feinstein",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "Journal of clinical epidemiology",
"volume": "43",
"issue": "6",
"pages": "551--558",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Domenic V Cicchetti and Alvan R Feinstein. 1990. High agreement but low kappa: Ii. resolving the para- doxes. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 43(6):551- 558.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jacob",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cohen",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1960,
"venue": "",
"volume": "20",
"issue": "",
"pages": "37--46",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.1177/001316446002000104"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jacob Cohen. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for no- minal scales. Educational and Psychological Mea- surement, 20(1):37-46.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA)",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Davies",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2015,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.7910/DVN/AMUDUW"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mark Davies. 2015. Corpus of Contemporary Ameri- can English (COCA).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jacob",
"middle": [],
"last": "Devlin",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ming-Wei",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Kenton",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lee",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Kristina",
"middle": [],
"last": "Toutanova",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2019,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies",
"volume": "1",
"issue": "",
"pages": "4171--4186",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.18653/v1/N19-1423"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kri- stina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understan- ding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Tech- nologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pa- ges 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Associati- on for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Joseph",
"middle": [
"L"
],
"last": "Fleiss",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1971,
"venue": "Psychological bulletin",
"volume": "76",
"issue": "5",
"pages": "378--382",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.1037/h0031619"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Joseph L. Fleiss. 1971. Measuring nominal scale agree- ment among many raters. Psychological bulletin, 76(5):378-382.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Reconstructing the past: A century of ideas about emotion in psychology",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Maria",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gendron",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Lisa",
"middle": [
"Feldman"
],
"last": "Barrett",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2009,
"venue": "Emotion Review",
"volume": "1",
"issue": "4",
"pages": "316--339",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.1177/1754073909338877"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Maria Gendron and Lisa Feldman Barrett. 2009. Re- constructing the past: A century of ideas about emo- tion in psychology. Emotion Review, 1(4):316-339.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "Detecting emotion stimuli in emotion-bearing sentences",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Diman",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ghazi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Diana",
"middle": [],
"last": "Inkpen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Stan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Szpakowicz",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2015,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "152--165",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-18117-2_12"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Diman Ghazi, Diana Inkpen, and Stan Szpakowicz. 2015. Detecting emotion stimuli in emotion-bearing sentences. In Computational Linguistics and Intelli- gent Text Processing, pages 152-165. Springer Inter- national Publishing.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "Appraisal theories for emotion classification in text",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hofmann",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Enrica",
"middle": [],
"last": "Troiano",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Kai",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sassenberg",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Roman",
"middle": [],
"last": "Klinger",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2020,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "125--138",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.18653/v1/2020.coling-main.11"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jan Hofmann, Enrica Troiano, Kai Sassenberg, and Ro- man Klinger. 2020. Appraisal theories for emoti- on classification in text. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Lingui- stics, pages 125-138, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Lingui- stics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Emotion recognition and confidence ratings predicted by vocal stimulus type and prosodic parameters",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Adi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lausen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Kurt",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hammerschmidt",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2020,
"venue": "Humanities and Social Sciences Communications",
"volume": "7",
"issue": "1",
"pages": "1--17",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Adi Lausen and Kurt Hammerschmidt. 2020. Emotion recognition and confidence ratings predicted by vo- cal stimulus type and prosodic parameters. Huma- nities and Social Sciences Communications, 7(1):1- 17.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "DailyDialog: A manually labelled multi-turn dialogue dataset",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Yanran",
"middle": [],
"last": "Li",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Hui",
"middle": [],
"last": "Su",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Xiaoyu",
"middle": [],
"last": "Shen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Wenjie",
"middle": [],
"last": "Li",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ziqiang",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cao",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Shuzi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Niu",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2017,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing",
"volume": "1",
"issue": "",
"pages": "986--995",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Yanran Li, Hui Su, Xiaoyu Shen, Wenjie Li, Ziqiang Cao, and Shuzi Niu. 2017. DailyDialog: A manu- ally labelled multi-turn dialogue dataset. In Procee- dings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 986-995, Taipei, Taiwan. Asian Fe- deration of Natural Language Processing.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "Grounded emotions",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Vicki",
"middle": [],
"last": "Liu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Carmen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Banea",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Rada",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mihalcea",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "Seventh International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII 2017)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "477--483",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"https://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/ACII.2017.8273642"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Vicki Liu, Carmen Banea, and Rada Mihalcea. 2007. Grounded emotions. In Seventh International Con- ference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Inter- action (ACII 2017), pages 477-483. IEEE Computer Society.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "#emotional tweets",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Saif",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mohammad",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2012,
"venue": "Proceedings of the main conference and the shared task, and Volume 2: Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation",
"volume": "1",
"issue": "",
"pages": "246--255",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Saif Mohammad. 2012. #emotional tweets. In *SEM 2012: The First Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics -Volume 1: Proceedings of the main conference and the shared task, and Vo- lume 2: Proceedings of the Sixth International Work- shop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2012), pages 246-255, Montr\u00e9al, Canada. Association for Com- putational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "Word affect intensities",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Saif",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mohammad",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2018,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Saif Mohammad. 2018. Word affect intensities. In Pro- ceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018), Miyazaki, Japan. European Language Re- sources Association (ELRA).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "WASSA-2017 shared task on emotion intensity",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Saif",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mohammad",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Felipe",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bravo-Marquez",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2017,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment and Social Media Analysis",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "34--49",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.18653/v1/W17-5205"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Saif Mohammad and Felipe Bravo-Marquez. 2017. WASSA-2017 shared task on emotion intensity. In Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Computatio- nal Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment and Soci- al Media Analysis, pages 34-49, Copenhagen, Den- mark. Association for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "Ranking the annotators: An agreement study on argumentation structure",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Andreas",
"middle": [],
"last": "Peldszus",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Manfred",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stede",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2013,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 7th Linguistic Annotation Workshop and Interoperability with Discourse",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "196--204",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Andreas Peldszus and Manfred Stede. 2013. Ranking the annotators: An agreement study on argumenta- tion structure. In Proceedings of the 7th Linguistic Annotation Workshop and Interoperability with Dis- course, pages 196-204, Sofia, Bulgaria. Association for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF21": {
"ref_id": "b21",
"title": "Linguistically debatable or just plain wrong?",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Barbara",
"middle": [],
"last": "Plank",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Dirk",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hovy",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Anders",
"middle": [],
"last": "S\u00f8gaard",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2014,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "2",
"issue": "",
"pages": "507--511",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.3115/v1/P14-2083"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Barbara Plank, Dirk Hovy, and Anders S\u00f8gaard. 2014. Linguistically debatable or just plain wrong? In Pro- ceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 507-511, Baltimore, Maryland. As- sociation for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF22": {
"ref_id": "b22",
"title": "Empirical analysis of aggregation methods for collective annotation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Ciyang",
"middle": [],
"last": "Qing",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ulle",
"middle": [],
"last": "Endriss",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Raquel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Fern\u00e1ndez",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Justin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kruger",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2014,
"venue": "Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers, pages 1533-1542",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Ciyang Qing, Ulle Endriss, Raquel Fern\u00e1ndez, and Ju- stin Kruger. 2014. Empirical analysis of aggregation methods for collective annotation. In Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers, pa- ges 1533-1542, Dublin, Ireland. Dublin City Univer- sity and Association for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF23": {
"ref_id": "b23",
"title": "Mind-reading ability: Beliefs and performance",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Anu",
"middle": [],
"last": "Realo",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J\u00fcri",
"middle": [],
"last": "Allik",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Aire",
"middle": [],
"last": "N\u00f5lvak",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Raivo",
"middle": [],
"last": "Valk",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Tuuli",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ruus",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Monika",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schmidt",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Tiina",
"middle": [],
"last": "Eilola",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "Journal of Research in Personality",
"volume": "37",
"issue": "5",
"pages": "420--445",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Anu Realo, J\u00fcri Allik, Aire N\u00f5lvak, Raivo Valk, Tuuli Ruus, Monika Schmidt, and Tiina Eilola. 2003. Mind-reading ability: Beliefs and performan- ce. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(5):420- 445.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF24": {
"ref_id": "b24",
"title": "The ISEAR questionnaire and codebook",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Klaus",
"middle": [
"R"
],
"last": "Scherer",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Harald",
"middle": [
"G"
],
"last": "Wallbott",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Klaus R. Scherer and Harald G. Wallbott. 1997. The ISEAR questionnaire and co- debook. Geneva Emotion Research Group.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF25": {
"ref_id": "b25",
"title": "Annotation, modelling and analysis of fine-grained emotions on a stance and sentiment detection corpus",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Hendrik",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schuff",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jeremy",
"middle": [],
"last": "Barnes",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Julian",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mohme",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sebastian",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pad\u00f3",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Roman",
"middle": [],
"last": "Klinger",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2017,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment and Social Media Analysis",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "13--23",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.18653/v1/W17-5203"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hendrik Schuff, Jeremy Barnes, Julian Mohme, Seba- stian Pad\u00f3, and Roman Klinger. 2017. Annotation, modelling and analysis of fine-grained emotions on a stance and sentiment detection corpus. In Pro- ceedings of the 8th Workshop on Computational Ap- proaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment and Social Me- dia Analysis, pages 13-23, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF26": {
"ref_id": "b26",
"title": "Would you describe a leopard as yellow? evaluating crowd-annotations with justified and informative disagreement",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Pia",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sommerauer",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Antske",
"middle": [],
"last": "Fokkens",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Piek",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vossen",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2020,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "4798--4809",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.18653/v1/2020.coling-main.422"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Pia Sommerauer, Antske Fokkens, and Piek Vossen. 2020. Would you describe a leopard as yellow? evaluating crowd-annotations with justified and in- formative disagreement. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Lingui- stics, pages 4798-4809, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Lingui- stics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF27": {
"ref_id": "b27",
"title": "The proof and measurement of association between two things",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Charles",
"middle": [],
"last": "Spearman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1904,
"venue": "The American Journal of Psychology",
"volume": "15",
"issue": "1",
"pages": "71--101",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.2307/1412159"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Charles Spearman. 1904. The proof and measurement of association between two things. The American Journal of Psychology, 15(1):71-101.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF28": {
"ref_id": "b28",
"title": "SemEval-2007 task 14: Affective text",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Carlo",
"middle": [],
"last": "Strapparava",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Rada",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mihalcea",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations (SemEval-2007)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "70--74",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Carlo Strapparava and Rada Mihalcea. 2007. SemEval- 2007 task 14: Affective text. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Semantic Evalua- tions (SemEval-2007), pages 70-74, Prague, Czech Republic. Association for Computational Lingui- stics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF29": {
"ref_id": "b29",
"title": "Learning to identify emotions in text",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Carlo",
"middle": [],
"last": "Strapparava",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Rada",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mihalcea",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2008,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2008 ACM symposium on Applied computing",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1556--1560",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/1363686.1364052"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Carlo Strapparava and Rada Mihalcea. 2008. Learning to identify emotions in text. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM symposium on Applied computing, pages 1556-1560.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF30": {
"ref_id": "b30",
"title": "Crowdsourcing and validating event-focused emotion corpora for German and English",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Enrica",
"middle": [],
"last": "Troiano",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sebastian",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pad\u00f3",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Roman",
"middle": [],
"last": "Klinger",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2019,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "4005--4011",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.18653/v1/P19-1391"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Enrica Troiano, Sebastian Pad\u00f3, and Roman Klinger. 2019. Crowdsourcing and validating event-focused emotion corpora for German and English. In Procee- dings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Associati- on for Computational Linguistics, pages 4005-4011, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Lin- guistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF31": {
"ref_id": "b31",
"title": "Text emotion distribution learning via multi-task convolutional neural network",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Yuxiang",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zhang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jiamei",
"middle": [],
"last": "Fu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Dongyu",
"middle": [],
"last": "She",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ying",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zhang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Senzhang",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jufeng",
"middle": [],
"last": "Yang",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2018,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-18",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "4595--4601",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.24963/ijcai.2018/639"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Yuxiang Zhang, Jiamei Fu, Dongyu She, Ying Zhang, Senzhang Wang, and Jufeng Yang. 2018. Text emo- tion distribution learning via multi-task convolutio- nal neural network. In Proceedings of the Twenty- Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-18, pages 4595-4601. Internatio- nal Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Orga- nization.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF32": {
"ref_id": "b32",
"title": "Knowledge-enriched transformer for emotion detection in textual conversations",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Peixiang",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zhong",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Di",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Chunyan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Miao",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2019,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "165--176",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.18653/v1/D19-1016"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Peixiang Zhong, Di Wang, and Chunyan Miao. 2019. Knowledge-enriched transformer for emotion detec- tion in textual conversations. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Na- tural Language Processing and the 9th Internatio- nal Joint Conference on Natural Language Pro- cessing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 165-176, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Lingui- stics.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "sentences are those which either 2. describe an event, a concept or state of affairs to which you would associate an emotion; 3. have an emotion as a central component of their meaning. Examples of 1. are: I am wearing my mask. She answered her phone. A new deal was established between the parties. The elections are over. Examples of 2. are: I saw my bestfriend. She was being pretty arrogant to me.",
"num": null,
"uris": null
},
"TABREF1": {
"content": "<table/>",
"type_str": "table",
"text": "",
"html": null,
"num": null
},
"TABREF3": {
"content": "<table/>",
"type_str": "table",
"text": "Counts of labels for subsets of ratings on EMO, post-processed with acceptance thresholds <2 and <3, for both CONF (top) and INT (bottom).",
"html": null,
"num": null
},
"TABREF5": {
"content": "<table/>",
"type_str": "table",
"text": "Binary classification on UED test set.",
"html": null,
"num": null
}
}
}
} |