Beyond Sentiment: Evaluating Gendered Language Using Zero-Shot Text Classification
Authors: James Perrotta, Joy Pawirosetiko, Bradley Pitcher, Georgi P. Yankov, Nithin Raghunath


Reviewer paper summaries: The study explored how gendered language affects response behavior in Situational Judgment Tests (SJTs) using zero-shot text classification technology. The experiment replicated and expanded previous research findings on the effects of emotional tone, testing several hypotheses about the impact of gendered language on response behavior in SJTs, and investigated the influence of different phrasings in action statements (negative, positive, masculine, feminine) on SJT assessments.
Summary of strengths: The paper attempts to use NLP (Natural Language Processing) technology to validate psychological theory hypotheses, specifically: zero-shot text classification and how the wording and sentiment of statements affect how respondents evaluate effectiveness in SJTs.
Summary of weaknesses: 1. The title of the paper (Beyond Sentiment: Evaluating Gendered Language Using Zero-Shot Text Classification) does not encompass the content of the paper.
2. The paper does not clearly explain the necessity of using zero-shot classification. If classification is needed, any automatic classification method could be used.

3. The paper does not provide a detailed explanation of how the data was constructed, the state of the data after construction, or how the various scores were calculated. It also does not explain the role of zero-shot text classification or how the experiments were conducted.

4. The paper does not explain why the deBERTa-v3-large-zeroshot-v2.0 model was chosen or how effective the model is, and this effect greatly influences the analysis and conclusions of the paper.

5. Validating the hypotheses from a certain paper based on existing methods reveals some shortcomings in the paper's innovation and practical significance.
Comments, suggestions and typos: 1. Add more charts and figures.
2. Clearly describe the data, experimental details, and results.
3. In section 3.2, the hypotheses mentioned should be numbered from 2 to 5, not 3 to 6.
Overall assessment scores: 1