Skip to Content
Future InternetFuture Internet
  • Article
  • Open Access

20 April 2020

14 Pages

Micro-Blog Sentiment Classification Method Based on the Personality and Bagging Algorithm

,
and
College of Information Science and Engineering, Xinjiang University, Urumqi, Xinjiang 830046, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Abstract

Integrated learning can be used to combine weak classifiers in order to improve the effect of emotional classification. Existing methods of emotional classification on micro-blogs seldom consider utilizing integrated learning. Personality can significantly influence user expressions but is seldom accounted for in emotional classification. In this study, a micro-blog emotion classification method is proposed based on a personality and bagging algorithm (PBAL). Introduce text personality analysis and use rule-based personality classification methods to divide five personality types. The micro-blog text is first classified using five personality basic emotion classifiers and a general emotion classifier. A long short-term memory language model is then used to train an emotion classifier for each set, which are then integrated together. Experimental results show that compared with traditional sentiment classifiers, PBAL has higher accuracy and recall. The F value has increased by 9%.

1. Introduction

With the rapid development and maturity of Internet technologies, many online social platforms have gradually become the primary medium for people to obtain information and communicate with each other. Emerging social platforms, such as Weibo and WeChat, allow users to interact with information quickly and easily.
Weibo is not only a medium for people to communicate with each other, but also a way to express personal emotions. However, while expressing opinions, spreading thoughts, and expressing personal emotions, users also generate a large amount of information with personal subjective emotional characteristics. This information contains emotional characteristics of different tendencies. These emotional characteristics reflect the user’s hobbies and interests. At the same time, it may also have a huge impact on the spread of Internet public opinion. Therefore, the sentiment analysis of Weibo text can understand the use’s preferences and users’ views on some hot events in the real society and make trend predictions.
Personality is a unique characteristic of an individual and profoundly affects the user’s psychological state and social behavior. Personality research mainly focuses on the correlation between various personalities and the relationships between personalities and performance, creativity, and others, most of which are analyzed by self-reporting and regression algorithms. With developments in psychological research, people with the same personality have been found to exhibit similarities in writing and expressions. This feature is the basis for introducing personality into sentiment analysis. At present, personality-based sentiment analysis is still in its exploratory stages. Sentiment analysis does not differentiate the various ways of expressing emotions based on user individuality, nor does it consider the combination of sentiment analysis and personality analysis. In order to address this problem, this paper proposes a personality-based Weibo sentiment analysis model, which introduces personality judgment rules to study the influence of personality on sentiment analysis.

4. Micro-Blog Sentiment Analysis Method Based on Personality and Bagging Algorithm

Since microblog texts published by users having the same personality type often contain similar emotional features, microblog texts are first classified into different character sets according to the personality. For each personality dataset, an emotion classifier is trained using the LSTM model, and five basic personality emotion classifiers and one general emotion classifier are obtained. The voting method is then used to integrate learning on several basic classifiers. The sentiment classification process based on the personality and bagging algorithm is shown in Figure 2, where C, A, and E refer to extroversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, respectively. H is used to indicate high, and L is used for low. For example, HA means high agreeableness, while LA indicates low agreeableness.
Figure 2. The sentiment classification process based on personality and bagging algorithm.

4.1. Text Personality Classification

In order to accurately assign micro-blog text to different collections, the personality characteristics of the text have to be predicted accurately. At present, personality prediction mainly involves three personality aspects in the Big Five model: extroversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. The two other dimensions, openness and neuroticism, are difficult to predict, as shown in previous studies [39,43], and therefore would not be included in this study. In scoring the personality, each dimension of personality can either be high or low. However, due to the low number of low conscientiousness texts in micro-blog, this study considers only five aspects: high extroversion, low extroversion, high agreeableness, low agreeableness, and high conscientiousness.
A rule-based personality classification method is used to evaluate the aspects of extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. The textual characteristics of each personality group reflect the commonalities of the corresponding emotional expressions. For example, conscientiousness expressions are often perceptions of achievement (e.g., results, persistence). Expressions of agreeableness are often related to love and praise (e.g., “love”, “beautiful”) and sympathy (e.g., “poor”). In contrast, the expressions of low-level agreeableness usually involve accusations or insults (e.g., “fool”, “stupid”). Extraversion expressions convey positive (e.g., “happy”) or negative (e.g., “lonely”) emotions directly.
For example, if the number of words (Cword) or emoticons (Cemoction) expressed by a high degree of conscientiousness (HC) in the text is high, the value of text conscientiousness would be considered as high. Table 1 presents the main text features of personality prediction.
Table 1. Text characteristics of a personality prediction.
Table 2 summarizes the set of rules for personality determination (where p1, p2... p10 are the thresholds used by the rule, and the size of the threshold is determined experimentally). Since the texts are evaluated using several aspects of personality, each text can belong to multiple personality sets.
Table 2. Rule of personality determination.

4.2. Ensemble Learning of Basic Emotion Classifier

A base sentiment classifier for each personality set is constructed using a tagged dataset. Micro-blog texts are sequenced data composed of words, which can have significant long-range dependencies, especially those reflecting sentiment and personality. LSTM is a sequence model, which can be used to construct a sentiment classifier and explore long-range dependencies.
In this study, the text is divided into different categories according to personality to obtain multiple training sets. One text may belong to multiple personality sets, and the data can be regarded as a choice with a return. A sentiment classifier is trained for each personality dataset using the LSTM. Each sentiment classifier is used to predict the sentiment tendency of the microblog text, and the results of all six basic classifiers are integrated. The integration process of the sentiment classifier is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. The process of integration of sentiment classifiers.
Given a set of microblog texts ( t 1 , t 2 , ⋯ , t n ) , six LSTM basic sentiment classifiers are used to generate output p i j + , p i j − for each of the microblog texts, where p i j + and p i j − represent the positive and negative probabilities of the microblog text computed by the j-th classifier, respectively. Based on the output of each basic sentiment classifier, the results are integrated to obtain the final emotional polarity. The base classifier results are then integrated using direct and weighted summation, which are expressed as follows:
l ′ = a r g m a x i ( 1 6 ( p i j + p i j + ⋯ p i j ) ) , i = 1 , 2 , … c ; j = 1 , 2 … 6
l ′ = a r g m a x i ( q 1 p i j + q 2 p i j + ⋯ q 6 p i j ) , i = 1 , 2 , … , c ; j = 1 , 2 , … , 6
where l ′ represents the final emotional polarity; i is the number of emotional categories; p i j is the output probability score of the six classifiers; and, q 1 , q 2 , ⋯ , q 6 are the weights of each basic classifier. For this paper, i is equal to 2, and the emotional categories are positive and negative.

5. Micro-Blog Sentiment Classification Experiment

5.1. Experimental Data

The training data in this paper is from the literature [46], including the text published by Sina micro-blog users from 21 October 2009, to 15 December 2014. The dataset contains 10,474 texts, and each text is labeled with emotional polarity. Among them, there are 7562 positive and 2912 negative.
Test dataset 1 used the Chinese Weibo sentiment analysis evaluation data provided by the 2012 CCF Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing Conference, which took 1100 texts, 600 positive texts, and 500 negative texts. The test dataset 2 consisted of a text crawled on Weibo using a crawler, with a total of 1500 pieces, 750 pieces each being positive and negative.

5.2. Basic Sentiment Classifier Comparison

This experiment was mainly used to verify the classification precision of each basic sentiment classifier, including five personality basic emotion classifiers and a general basic emotion classifier. The dataset contains 10,474 texts, comprising 3151 high conscientiousness datasets (HC), 3188 high agreeableness datasets (HA), 3204 low agreeableness datasets (LA), 5585 high extroversion datasets (HE), and 3154 low extroversion dataset (LE). For comparison purposes, 3600 data points were randomly extracted from the universal set to form the dataset (ALLpart) that has an equal number of samples for each category. The experimental results are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Comparison of basic sentiment classifiers.
As shown in Table 3, the F1 values of the HA classifier and HC classifier in the five personality basic emotion classifiers are higher than the ALL classifier. This indicates that the targeted sentiment analysis is effective on the different personality sets.
HC has the highest accuracy among the five sentiment classifiers. However, the overall accuracy is not particularly high, which could be the result of having a small dataset. Another possible explanation could be that, since the personality set is divided according to user personality, some errors may exist in classifying the user’s personality, which could decrease the accuracy of the trained sentiment classifier.

5.3. Comparison of Bagging Algorithm Integration Methods

Experiments were used to verify the feasibility of applying the bagging algorithm. In the direct summation method, the weight of each classifier is kept equal (i.e., q j = 1 6 ). In the weighted sum method, the weight of each personality set is determined using cross-validation. The main criterion is to make precision as high as possible. In order to limit the computational workload, we restricted the number of experiments to 30 and picked the set with the highest precision as the approximate optimum. The optimal weights obtained for each personality set are: q 1 = 0.16 , q 2 = 0.23 , q 3 = 0.16 , q 4 = 0.16 , q 5 = 0.14 , q 6 = 0.15 . q1, q2,..., q6 are the weight parameters of ALL, HC, HA, HE, LA, and LE. For comparison purposes, Table 4 lists some of the other weight settings.
Table 4. Partial weight setting comparison.
The weight is usually proportional to the precision of the classifier on the training set; the higher the precision, the greater the weight. As shown in Table 3, the precision of the HC personality set is the highest, which consequently resulted in its weight being then largest. This is consistent with the results obtained in Table 4.
The experimental results of the two integration methods are shown in Table 5. The weighted sum method has a higher F score. The summation method assumes that all classifiers have equal weights. However, in practical applications, different classifiers should have varying weights given their different degrees of importance. Therefore, the weighted sum method is recommended as the final integration method.
Table 5. Comparison of integration methods.

5.4. Comparative Experiment

The precision, recall, and F1 values are used as evaluation indicators in comparing the proposed PBAL approach with other benchmark techniques:
(1)
SVM: The basic model of a Support Vector Machine (SVM) is to find the best-separated hyperplane in the feature space to maximize the positive and negative sample spacing on the training set. SVM is a supervised learning algorithm used to solve the two-class problem. It can also be used to solve nonlinear problems after the introduction of the kernel method.
(2)
LSTM: Proposed by Hochreiter and Schmidhuber (1997), LSTM is a special type of RNN that helps in learning long-term dependency information.
(3)
CNN-rand: The CNN-rand was proposed by Kim in 2014 [47] where all the words are randomly initialized and then modified during training.
(4)
CNN-static: presented also by Kim in 2014, the CNN static includes a pre-training vector model from word2vec. All words, including randomly initialized unknown words, are kept static, and only the other parameters are learned in the model.
(5)
CNN-non-static: Similar to CNN-static, the CNN–non-static includes a fine-tuned vector pre-trained for each task.
(6)
PBAL: See Table 6 for experimental parameter settings.
Table 6. Experimental parameters.
The experimental results in test dataset 1 are summarized in Table 7. The F1 value of the proposed method was found to be higher compared with other benchmark methods. This suggests the effectiveness of personality and integrated learning in improving the emotional classification effect. Users with the same personality type are likely to be consistent with their expressions, and the sentiment classifiers trained towards a specific personality set are more precise than the general sentiment classifiers. The use of integrated learning can also make less-used personality-related features more effective while improving the classification with the use of multiple classifiers. At the same time, we applied PBAL to test dataset 2. As shown in Table 8, the results are consistent with the experimental conclusions on test dataset 7.
Table 7. Experimental results on test dataset 1.
Table 8. Experimental results on test dataset 2.
In order to further study the influence of each personality on the final result of sentiment classification, different personality characteristics were combined and compared with the results of PBAL method. The experimental results are shown in Table 9. PBAL-HC indicates that the HC personality is not considered, PBAL-HA indicates that HA personality is not considered, PBAL-LA indicates that the LA personality is not considered, PBAL-HE indicates that HE personality is not considered, and PBAL-LE indicates that LE personality is not considered.
Table 9. Experimental results of the personality and bagging algorithm (PBAL) method lacking a set of personality in dataset 1.
Comparing the results shown in Table 9 and Table 10, the F1 value of the PBAL method is the highest. This suggests that in the ensemble learning process, the result of the basic emotion classifier without any character affects the final classification quality. Each personality contributes to the final classification effect, which means that the training of personality-based sentiment classifiers should make full use of the text collection of the various personality. Considering personality characteristics as comprehensively as possible would improve the performance of sentiment analysis.
Table 10. Experimental results of the PBAL method lacking a set of personality in dataset 2.

6. Conclusion and Future Work

Significant similarities in user expressions have been shown for users with the same personality type. Thus, microblog texts can be divided into groups based on user personality, and a basic sentiment classifier can be trained for each personality type and then combined using integrated learning to achieve a stronger classifier. Based on the analysis of user personality, this paper constructs five types of personality classifiers, introduces the concept of personality based on traditional sentiment analysis, and proposes a microblog sentiment classification method based on personality and bagging algorithms. The results show that personality characteristics significantly improve the sentiment analysis of the text and provide new ideas for social network sentiment analysis.
While the use of sentiment analysis was found to be better than other typical machine learning methods, this study has several shortcomings. The rule-based personality classification method proposed in this paper may affect the accuracy of sentiment analysis because it uses fewer features. Future studies should further develop personality determination rules, extract more fine-grained personality characteristics, and improve classification accuracy. In our proposed approach, only the LSTM model is used to train the basic emotion classifier. Future research ought to consider using other neural network methods to determine if they can yield better results. The multimodality-based sentiment analysis method is one of the future development trends in this field. This means that future work should consider mining user personality characteristics in multimodal data and further study the relationship between emotion and personality.

Author Contributions

Data curation, W.Y. and T.Y.; Provision of study materials, W.Y. and T.Y.; methodology, W.Y.and L.W.; supervision, W.Y. and T.W.; writing—original draft, W.Y.; writing—review and editing, T.Y., L.W. and W.Y.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.U1603115), a sub-thesis of the National Key R & D Program (2017YFC0820702-3), the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region Natural Science Foundation of China (No.2017D01C042), and the Sichuan Science and Technology Program (WA2018-YY007.

Acknowledgments

The authors contributed equally to the paper and author names are in alphabetical order. The authors thank the editor, and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions that have significantly improved this study.Special thanks to the professional English editing service from EditX, and Thanks for Huang Xianke’s support and help.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bermudezgonzalez, D.; Mirandajiménez, S.; Garcíamoreno, R.; Calderónnepamuceno, D. Generating a Spanish Affective Dictionary with Supervised Learning Techniques. In New Perspectives on Teaching and Working with Languages in the Digital Era; Research-publishing.net: Dublin, Ireland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  2. Cai, Y.; Yang, K.; Huang, D.; Zhou, Z.; Lei, X.; Xie, H.; Wong, T.L. A hybrid model for opinion mining based on domain sentiment dictionary. Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  3. Xu, G.; Yu, Z.; Yao, H.; Li, F.; Meng, Y.; Wu, X. Chinese Text Sentiment Analysis Based on Extended Sentiment Dictionary. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 43749–43762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  4. Yang, Y.; Zhou, F. Microblog Sentiment Analysis Algorithm Research and Implementation Based on Classification. In Proceedings of the 2015 14th International Symposium on Distributed Computing and Applications for Business Engineering and Science (DCABES), Guiyang, China, 18–24 August 2015. [Google Scholar]
  5. Pang, B.; Lee, L.; Vaithyanathan, S. Thumbs up? In Sentiment Classification using Machine Learning Techniques. In Proceedings of the Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 6–7 July 2002; pp. 79–86. [Google Scholar]
  6. Kamal, A.; Abulaish, M. Statistical Features Identification for Sentiment Analysis Using Machine Learning Techniques. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Symposium on Computational and Business Intelligence, New Delhi, India, 24–26 August 2013; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  7. Song, M.; Park, H.; Shin, K. Attention-based long short-term memory network using sentiment lexicon embedding for aspect-level sentiment analysis in Korean. Inf. Process. Manag. 2019, 56, 637–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. Sharma, A.; Dey, S. A boosted SVM based sentiment analysis approach for online opinionated text. In Proceedings of the Research in Adaptive and Convergent Systems, Montreal, QC, Canada, 1–4 October 2013; pp. 28–34. [Google Scholar]
  9. Sharma, S.; Srivastava, S.; Kumar, A.; Dangi, A. Multi-Class Sentiment Analysis Comparison Using Support Vector Machine (SVM) and BAGGING Technique-An Ensemble Method. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Smart Computing and Electronic Enterprise (ICSCEE), Shah Alam, Malaysia, 11–12 July 2018; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  10. Rong, W.; Nie, Y.; Ouyang, Y.; Peng, B.; Zhang, X. Auto-encoder based bagging architecture for sentiment analysis. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 2014, 25, 840–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  11. Lin, D.; Chen, H.; Li, X. Improving Sentiment Classification Using Feature Highlighting and Feature Bagging. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE 11th International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW), Vancouver, BC, Canada, 11 December 2011. [Google Scholar]
  12. Wang, C.H.; Han, D. Sentiment Analysis of Micro-blog Integrated on Explicit Semantic Analysis Method. Wirel. Pers. Commun. 2018, 102, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Waila, P.; Singh, V.K.; Singh, M.K. Evaluating Machine Learning and Unsupervised Semantic Orientation approaches for sentiment analysis of textual reviews. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Conference on Computational Intelligence & Computing Research (ICCIC), Coimbatore, India, 18–20 December 2012. [Google Scholar]
  14. Mladenovic, M.; Mitrovic, J.; Krstev, C.; Vitas, D. Hybrid sentiment analysis framework for a morphologically rich language. Intell. Inf. Syst. 2016, 46, 599–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  15. Yin, R.; Li, P.; Wang, B. Sentiment Lexical-Augmented Convolutional Neural Networks for Sentiment Analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Data Science in Cyberspace, Shenzhen, China, 26–29 June 2017; pp. 630–635. [Google Scholar]
  16. Dan, L.; Jiang, Q. Text sentiment analysis based on long short-term memory. In Proceedings of the 2016 First IEEE International Conference on Computer Communication and the Internet (ICCCI), Wuhan, China, 13–15 October 2016. [Google Scholar]
  17. Lu, C.; Huang, H.; Jian, P.; Wang, D.; Guo, Y. A P-LSTM Neural Network for Sentiment Classification. In Proceedings of the Pacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Jeju, Korea, 23–26 May 2017; pp. 524–533. [Google Scholar]
  18. Rezaeinia, S.M.; Ghodsi, A.; Rahmani, R. Text Classification based on Multiple Block Convolutional Highways. arXiv 2018, arXiv:1807.09602. [Google Scholar]
  19. Jabreel, M.; Moreno, A. EiTAKA at SemEval-2018 Task 1: An ensemble of n-channels ConvNet and XGboost regressors for emotion analysis of tweets. arXiv 2018, arXiv:1802.09233. [Google Scholar]
  20. Abdi, A.; Shamsuddin, S.M.; Hasan, S.; Piran, J. Deep learning-based sentiment classification of evaluative text based on Multi-feature fusion. Inf. Process. Manag. 2019, 56, 1245–1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. Liu, Y.; Chen, Y. Research on Chinese Micro-Blog Sentiment Analysis Based on Deep Learning. In Proceedings of the 2015 8th International Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Design (ISCID), Hangzhou, China, 12–13 December 2015. [Google Scholar]
  22. Hyun, D.; Park, C.; Yang, M.; Song, I.; Lee, J.; Yu, H. Target-aware convolutional neural network for target-level sentiment analysis. Inf. Sci. 2019, 491, 166–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  23. Chen, T.; Xu, R.; He, Y.; Wang, X. Improving sentiment analysis via sentence type classification using BiLSTM-CRF and CNN. Expert Syst. Appl. 2017, 72, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. Rezaeinia, S.M.; Rahmani, R.; Ghodsi, A.; Veisi, H. Sentiment analysis based on improved pre-trained word embeddings. Expert Syst. Appl. 2019, 117, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  25. Sun, X.; Li, C.; Ren, F. Sentiment analysis for Chinese microblog based on deep neural networks with convolutional extension features. Neurocomputing 2016, 210, 227–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  26. Shrestha, N.; Nasoz, F. Deep Learning Sentiment Analysis of Amazon.Com Reviews and Ratings. Int. J. Soft Comput. Artif. Intell. Appl. 2019, 8, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  27. Bijari, K.; Zare, H.; Kebriaei, E.; Veisi, H. Leveraging deep graph-based text representation for sentiment polarity applications. Expert Syst. Appl. 2020, 144, 113090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  28. Hassan, A.; Mahmood, A. Deep Learning approach for sentiment analysis of short texts. In Proceedings of the 2017 3rd International Conference on Control, Automation and Robotics (ICCAR), Nagoya, Japan, 24–26 April 2017. [Google Scholar]
  29. Poria, S.; Chaturvedi, I.; Cambria, E.; Hussain, A. Convolutional MKL Based Multimodal Emotion Recognition and Sentiment Analysis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Mining, Barcelona, Spain, 12–15 December 2016; pp. 439–448. [Google Scholar]
  30. You, Q.; Cao, L.; Jin, H.; Luo, J. Robust Visual-Textual Sentiment Analysis: When Attention meets Tree-structured Recursive Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 15–19 October 2016. [Google Scholar]
  31. Xu, J.; Zhu, J.; Zhao, R.; Zhang, L.; He, L.; Li, J. Sentiment analysis of aerospace microblog based on SVM algorithm. Res. Inf. Secur. 2017, 12, 75–79. [Google Scholar]
  32. Han, K.X.; Ren, W.J. The Application of Support Vector Machine(SVM) on the Sentiment Analysis of Twitter Database Based on an Improved FISHER Kernel Function. Tech. Autom. Appl. 2015, 11, 7. [Google Scholar]
  33. Cai, G.; Xia, B. Convolutional Neural Networks for Multimedia Sentiment Analysis. In Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  34. Yu, Y.; Lin, H.; Meng, J.; Zhao, Z. Visual and textual sentiment analysis of a microblog using deep convolutional neural networks. Algorithms 2016, 9, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  35. Huang, F.; Zhang, X.; Zhao, Z.; Xu, J.; Li, Z. Image–text sentiment analysis via deep multimodal attentive fusion. Knowl. Based Syst. 2019, 167, 26–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  36. Xu, J.; Huang, F.; Zhang, X.; Wang, S.; Li, C.; Li, Z.; He, Y. Visual-textual sentiment classification with bi-directional multi-level attention networks. Knowl. Based Syst. 2019, 178, 61–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. Poria, S.; Cambria, E.; Howard, N.; Huang, G.-B.; Hussain, A. Fusing Audio, Visual and Textual Clues for Sentiment Analysis from Multimodal Content. Neurocomputing 2016, 174, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  38. Hirsh, J.B.; Peterson, J.B. Personality and language use in self-narratives. J. Res. Personal. 2009, 43, 524–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  39. Golbeck, J.; Robles, C.; Edmondson, M.; Turner, K. Predicting Personality from Twitter. In Proceedings of the Privacy Security Risk and Trust, Boston, MA, USA, 9–11 October 2011; pp. 149–156. [Google Scholar]
  40. Bai, S.; Hao, B.; Li, A.; Yuan, S.; Gao, R.; Zhu, T. Predicting Big Five Personality Traits of Microblog Users. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conferences on Web Intelligence (WI) and Intelligent Agent Technologies (IAT), Atlanta, GA, USA, 17–20 November 2013; pp. 501–508. [Google Scholar]
  41. Nowson, S.; Perez, J.; Brun, C.; Mirkin, S.; Roux, C. XRCE Personal Language Analytics Engine for Multilingual Author Profiling: Notebook for PAN at CLEF 2015. CLEF (Working Notes). Available online: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.703.87&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed on 18 April 2020).
  42. IMyers, B.; McCaulley, M.H.; Most, R. Manual, a Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator; Consulting Psychologists Press: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  43. Qiu, L.; Lin, H.; Ramsay, J.; Yang, F. You are what you tweet: Personality expression and perception on Twitter. J. Res. Personal. 2012, 46, 710–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  44. Mikolov, T.; Karafiat, M.; Burget, L.; Cernocký, J.; Khudanpur, S. Recurrent neural network based language model. In Proceedings of the Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Makuhari, Chiba, Japan, 26–30 September 2010; pp. 1045–1048. [Google Scholar]
  45. Bengio, Y.; Simard, P.; Frasconi, P. Learning Long-term Dependencies with Gradient Descent is Difficult. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. 1994, 5, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  46. Du, Y.; He, Y.; Tian, Y.; Chen, Q.; Lin, L. Microblog bursty topic detection based on user relationship. In Proceedings of the IEEE Joint International Information Technology and Artificial Intelligence Conference, Chongqing, China, 20–22 August 2011; Volume 1, pp. 260–263. [Google Scholar]
  47. Kim, Y. Convolutional Neural Networks for Sentence Classification. In Proceedings of the Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Hong Kong, China, 3–7 November 2014; pp. 1746–1751. [Google Scholar]

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.