ArticleJournal of technology in behavioral science2017
Machine Learning for Identifying Emotional Expression in Text: Improving the Accuracy of Established Methods.
Article in Journal of technology in behavioral science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identification of Emotional Expression With Cancer Survivors: Validation of Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count.JMIR formative research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Expression of emotion has been linked to numerous critical and beneficial aspects of human functioning. Accurately capturing emotional expression in text grows in relevance as people continue to spend more time in an online environment. The Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) is a commonly used program for the identification of many constructs, including emotional expression. In an earlier study (Bantum & Owen, 2009) LIWC was demonstrated to have good sensitivity yet poor positive predictive value. The goal of the current study was to create an automated machine learning technique to mimic manual coding. The sample included online support groups, cancer discussion boards, and transcripts from an expressive writing study, which resulted in 39,367 sentence-level coding decisions. In examining the entire sample the machine learning approach outperformed LIWC, in all categories outside of Sensitivity for negative emotion (LIWC Sensitivity = .85; Machine Learning Sensitivity = .41), although LIWC does not take into consideration prosocial emotion, such as affection, interest, and validation. LIWC performed significantly better than the machine learning approach when removing the prosocial emotions (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.