ArticleBMC psychology2024
Evaluation of emotion classification schemes in social media text: an annotation-based approach.
Article in BMC psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Granularity paradox: how emotion taxonomies shape GPT-5's affective cognition and human-AI alignment.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEmotion analysis of social media texts is an innovative method for gaining insight into the mental state of the public and understanding social phenomena. However, emotion is a complex psychological phenomenon, and there are various emotion classification schemes. Which one is suitable for textual emotion analysis?
methodsWe proposed a framework for evaluating emotion classification schemes based on manual annotation experiments. Considering both the quality and efficiency of emotion analysis, we identified five criteria, which are solidity, coverage, agreement, compactness, and distinction. Qualitative and quantitative factors were synthesized using the AHP, where quantitative metrics were derived from annotation experiments. Applying this framework, 2848 Sina Weibo posts related to public events were used to evaluate the five emotion schemes: SemEval's four emotions, Ekman's six basic emotions, ancient China's Seven Emotions, Plutchik's eight primary emotions, and GoEmotions' 27 emotions.
resultsThe AHP evaluation result shows that Ekman's scheme had the highest score. The multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) analysis shows that Ekman, Plutchik, and the Seven Emotions are relatively similar. We analyzed Ekman's six basic emotions in relation to the emotion categories of the other schemes. The correspondence analysis shows that the Seven Emotions' joy aligns with Ekman's happiness, love demonstrates a significant correlation with happiness, but desire is not significantly correlated with any emotion. Compared to Ekman, Plutchik has two more positive emotions: trust and anticipation. Trust is somewhat associated with happiness, but anticipation is weakly associated with happiness. Each emotion of Ekman's corresponds to several similar emotions in GoEmotions. However, some emotions in GoEmotions are not clearly related to Ekman's, such as approval, love, pride, amusement, etc.
conclusionEkman's scheme performs best under the evaluation framework. However, it lacks sufficient positive emotion categories for the corpus.
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.