Datingsite 123 liefde
With only token unigrams, the recognition accuracy was 80.5%, while using all features together increased this only slightly to 80.6%. (2014) examined about 9 million tweets by 14,000 Twitter users tweeting in American English.
They used lexical features, and present a very good breakdown of various word types.
When using all user tweets, they reached an accuracy of 88.0%.
An interesting observation is that there is a clear class of misclassified users who have a majority of opposite gender users in their social network. When adding more information sources, such as profile fields, they reach an accuracy of 92.0%.
For all techniques and features, we ran the same 5-fold cross-validation experiments in order to determine how well they could be used to distinguish between male and female authors of tweets.
One gets the impression that gender recognition is more sociological than linguistic, showing what women and men were blogging about back in A later study (Goswami et al.2009) managed to increase the gender recognition quality to 89.2%, using sentence length, 35 non-dictionary words, and 52 slang words.The authors do not report the set of slang words, but the non-dictionary words appear to be more related to style than to content, showing that purely linguistic behaviour can contribute information for gender recognition as well.2004), with and without preprocessing the input vectors with Principal Component Analysis (PCA; (Pearson 1901); (Hotelling 1933)).
We also varied the recognition features provided to the techniques, using both character and token n-grams.
Two other machine learning systems, Linguistic Profiling and Ti MBL, come close to this result, at least when the input is first preprocessed with PCA. Introduction In the Netherlands, we have a rather unique resource in the form of the Twi NL data set: a daily updated collection that probably contains at least 30% of the Dutch public tweet production since 2011 (Tjong Kim Sang and van den Bosch 2013).