ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2024
Using artificial intelligence to explore sound symbolic expressions of gender in American English.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates the extent to which gender can be inferred from the phonemes that make up given names and words in American English. Two extreme gradient boosted algorithms were constructed to classify words according to gender, one using a list of the most common given names (N∼1,000) in North America and the other using the Glasgow Norms (N∼5,500), a corpus consisting of nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs which have each been assigned a psycholinguistic score of how they are associated with male or female behaviour. Both models report significant findings, but the model constructed using given names achieves a greater accuracy despite being trained on a smaller dataset suggesting that gender is expressed more robustly in given names than in other word classes. Feature importance was examined to determine which features were contributing to the decision-making process. Feature importance scores revealed a general pattern across both models, but also show that not all word classes express gender the same way. Finally, the models were reconstructed and tested on the opposite dataset to determine whether they were useful in classifying opposite samples. The results showed that the models were not as accurate when classifying opposite samples, suggesting that they are more suited to classifying words of the same class.
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.