prompt_front: You are given a scientific article and a question. Answer the question as concisely as you can, using a single phrase or sentence if possible. If the question cannot be answered based on the information in the article, write "unanswerable". If the question is a yes/no question, answer "yes", "no", or "unanswerable". Do not provide any explanation.

Please answer the questions based on the text provided below. What are the sources of the datasets?
Context 1: Introduction
Emotion detection has long been a topic of interest to scholars in natural language processing (NLP) domain  Researchers aim to recognize the emotion behind the text and distribute similar ones into the same group  Establishing an emotion classifier can not only understand each user's feeling but also be extended to various application, for example, the motivation behind a user's interests BIBREF0  Based on releasing of large text corpus on social media and the emotion categories proposed by BIBREF1, BIBREF2, numerous models have provided and achieved fabulous precision so far  For example, DeepMoji BIBREF3 which utilized transfer learning concept to enhance emotions and sarcasm understanding behind the target sentence  CARER BIBREF4 learned contextualized affect representations to make itself more sensitive to rare words and the scenario behind the texts 
As methods become mature, text-based emotion detecting applications can be extended from a single utterance to a dialogue contributed by a series of utterances  Table TABREF2 illustrates the difference between single utterance and dialogue emotion recognition  The same utterances in Table TABREF2, even the same person said the same sentence, the emotion it convey may be various, which may depend on different background of the conversation, tone of speaking or personality  Therefore, for emotion detection, the information from preceding utterances in a conversation is relatively critical 
In SocialNLP 2019 EmotionX, the challenge is to recognize emotions for all utterances in EmotionLines dataset, a dataset consists of dialogues  According to the needs for considering context at the same time, we develop two classification models, inspired by bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT) BIBREF5, FriendsBERT and ChatBERT  In this paper, we introduce our approaches including causal utterance modeling, model pre-training, and fine-turning 
Dataset
EmotionLines BIBREF6 is a dialogue dataset composed of two subsets, Friends and EmotionPush, according to the source of the dialogues  The former comes from the scripts of the Friends TV sitcom  The other is made up of Facebook messenger chats  Each subset includes $1,000$ English dialogues, and each dialogue can be further divided into a few consecutive utterances  All the utterances are annotated by five annotators on a crowd-sourcing platform (Amazon Mechanical Turk), and the labeling work is only based on the textual content  Annotator votes for one of the seven emotions, namely Ekman’s six basic emotions BIBREF1, plus the neutral  If none of the emotion gets more than three votes, the utterance will be marked as “non-neutral” 
For the datasets, there are properties worth additional mentioning  Although Friends and EmotionPush share the same data format, they are quite different in nature  Friends is a speech-based dataset which is annotated dialogues from the TV sitcom  It means most of the utterances are generated by the a few main characters  The personality of a character often affects the way of speaking, and therefore “who is the speaker" might provide extra clues for emotion prediction  In contrast, EmotionPush does not have this trait due to the anonymous mechanism  In addition, features such as typo, hyperlink, and emoji that only appear in chat-based data will need some domain-specific techniques to process 
Incidentally, the objective of the challenge is to predict the emotion for each utterance  Just, according to EmotionX 2019 specification, there are only four emotions be selected as our label candidates, which are Joy, Sadness, Anger, and Neutral  These emotions will be considered during performance evaluation  The technical detail will also be introduced and discussed in following Section SECREF13 and Section SECREF26 
Model Description
For this challenge, we adapt BERT which is proposed by BIBREF5 to help understand the context at the same time  Technically, BERT, designed on end-to-end architecture, is a deep pre-trained transformer encoder that dynamically provides language representation and BERT already achieved multiple state-of-the-art results on GLUE benchmark BIBREF7 and many tasks  A quick recap for BERT's architecture and its pre-training tasks will be illustrated in the following subsections 
Model Description ::: Model Architecture
BERT, the Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers, consists of several transformer encoder layers that enable the model to extract very deep language features on both token-level and sentence-level  Each transformer encoder contains multi-head self-attention layers that provide ability to learn multiple attention feature of each word from their bidirectional context  The transformer and its self-attention mechanism are proposed by BIBREF8  This self-attention mechanism can be interpreted as a key-value mapping given query  By given the embedding vector for token input, the query ($Q$), key ($K$) and value ($V$) are produced by the projection from each three parameter matrices where $W^Q \in \mathbb {R}^{d_{{\rm model}} \times d_{k}}, W^K \in \mathbb {R}^{d_{\rm model} \times d_{k}}$ and $W^V \in \mathbb {R}^{d_{\rm model} \times d_{v}}$  The self-attention BIBREF8 is formally represented as:
The $ d_k = d_v = d_{\rm model} = 1024$ in BERT large version and 768 in BERT base version  Once model can extract attention feature, we can extend one self-attention into multi-head self-attention, this extension makes sub-space features can be extracted in same time by this multi-head configuration  Overall, the multi-attention mechanism is adopt for each transformer encoder, and several of encoder layer will be stacked together to form a deep transformer encoder 
For the model input, BERT allow us take one sentence as input sequence or two sentences together as one input sequence, and the maximum length of input sequence is 512  The way that BERT was designed is for giving model the sentence-level and token-level understanding  In two sentences case, a special token ([SEP]) will be inserted between two sentences  In addition, the first input token is also a special token ([CLS]), and its corresponding ouput will be vector place for classification during fine-tuning  The outputs of the last encoder layer corresponding to each input token can be treated as word representations for each token, and the word representation of the first token ([CLS]) will be consider as classification (output) representation for further fine-tuning tasks  In BERT, this vector is denoted as $C \in \mathbb {R}^{d_{\rm model}} $, and a classification layer is denoted as $ W \in \mathbb {R}^{K \times d_{\rm model}}$, where $K$ is number of classification labels  Finally, the prediction $P$ of BERT is represented as $P = {\rm softmax}(CW^T)$ 
Model Description ::: Pre-training Tasks
In pre-training, intead of using unidirectional language models, BERT developed two pre-training tasks: (1) Masked LM (cloze test) and (2) Next Sentence Prediction  At the first pre-training task, bidirectional language modeling can be done at this cloze-like pre-training  In detail, 15% tokens of input sequence will be masked at random and model need to predict those masked tokens  The encoder will try to learn contextual representations from every given tokens due to masking tokens at random  Model will not know which part of the input is going to be masked, so that the information of each masked tokens should be inferred by remaining tokens  At Next Sentence Prediction, two sentences concatenated together will be considered as model input  In order to give model a good nature language understanding, knowing relationship between sentence is one of important abilities  When generating input sequences, 50% of time the sentence B is actually followed by sentence A, and rest 50% of the time the sentence B will be picked randomly from dataset, and model need to predict if the sentence B is next sentence of sentence A  That is, the attention information will be shared between sentences  Such sentence-level understanding may have difficulties to be learned at first pre-training task (Masked LM), therefore, the pre-training task (NSP) is developed as second training goal to capture the cross sentence relationship 
In this competition, limited by the size of dataset and the challenge in contextual emotion recognition, we consider BERT with both two pre-training tasks can give a good starting point to extract emotion changing during dialogue-like conversation  Especially the second pre-training task, it might be more important for dialogue-like conversation where the emotion may various by the context of continuous utterances  That is, given a set of continues conversations, the emotion of current utterance might be influenced by previous utterance  By this assumption and with supporting from the experiment results of BERT, we can take sentence A as one-sentence context and consider sentence B as the target sentence for emotion prediction  The detail will be described in Section SECREF4 
Methodology
The main goal of the present work is to predict the emotion of utterance within the dialogue  Following are four major difficulties we concern about:
The emotion of the utterances depends not only on the text but also on the interaction happened earlier 
The source of the two datasets are different  Friends is speech-based dialogues and EmotionPush is chat-based dialogues  It makes datasets possess different characteristics 
There are only $1,000$ dialogues in both training datasets which are not large enough for the stability of training a complex neural-based model 
The prediction targets (emotion labels) are highly unbalanced 
The proposed approach is summarized in Figure FIGREF3, which aims to overcome these challenges  The framework could be separated into three steps and described as follow:
Methodology ::: Causal Utterance Modeling
Given a dialogue $D^{(i)}$ which includes sequence of utterances denoted as $D^{(i)}=(u^{(i)}_{1}, u^{(i)}_{2},    , u^{(i)}_{n})$, where $i$ is the index in dataset and $n$ is the number of utterances in the given dialogue  In order to conserve the emotional information of both utterance and conversation, we rearrange each two consecutive utterances $u_{t}, u_{t-1}$ into a single sentence representation $x_{t}$ as
The corresponding sentence representation corpus $X^{(i)}$ are denoted as $X^{(i)}=(x^{(i)}_{1}, x^{(i)}_{2},    , x^{(i)}_{n})$  Note that the first utterance within a conversation does not have its causal utterance (previous sentence), therefore, the causal utterance will be set as [None]  A practical example of sentence representation is shown in Table TABREF11 
Since the characteristics of two datasets are not identical, we customize different causal utterance modeling strategies to refine the information in text 
For Friends, there are two specific properties  The first one is that most dialogues are surrounding with the six main characters, including Rachel, Monica, Phoebe, Joey, Chandler, and Ross  The utterance ratio of given by the six roles is up to $83 4\%$  Second, the personal characteristics of the six characters are very clear  Each leading role has its own emotion undulated rule  To make use of these features, we introduce the personality tokenization which help learning the personality of the six characters  Personality tokenization concatenate the speaker and says tokens before the input utterance if the speaker is one of the six characters  The example is shown in Table TABREF12 
For EmotionPush, the text are informal chats which including like slang, acronym, typo, hyperlink, and emoji  Another characteristic is that the specific name entities are tokenized with random index  (e g  “organization_80”, “person_01”, and “time_12”)  We consider some of these informal text are related to expressing emotion such as repeated typing, purposed capitalization, and emoji (e g  “:D”, “:(”, and “<3”))  Therefore, we keep most informal expressions but only process hyperlinks, empty utterance, and name entities by unifying the tokens 
Methodology ::: Model Pre-training
Since the size of both datasets are not large enough for complex neural-based model training as well as BERT model is only pre-train on formal text datasets, the issues of overfitting and domain bias are important considerations for design the pre-training process 
To avoid our model overfitting on the training data and increase the understanding of informal text, we adapted BERT and derived two models, namely FriendsBERT and ChatBERT, with different pre-training tasks before the formal training process for Friends and EmotionPush dataset, respectively  The pre-training strategies are described below 
For pre-training FriendsBERT, we collect the completed scripts of all ten seasons of Friends TV shows from emorynlp which includes 3,107 scenes within 61,309 utterances  All the utterances are followed the preprocessing methods mentions above to compose the corpus for Masked language model pre-training task  The consequent utterances in the same scenes are considered as the consequent sentences to pre-train the Next Sentence Prediction task  In the pre-training process, the training loss is the sum of the mean likelihood of two pre-train tasks 
For pre-training ChatBERT, we pre-train our model on the Twitter dataset, since the text and writing style on Twitter are close to the chat text where both may involved with many informal words or emoticons as well  The Twitter emotion dataset, 8 basic emotions from emotion wheel BIBREF1, was collected by twitter streaming API with specific emotion-related hashtags, such as #anger, #joy, #cry, #sad and etc  The hashtags in tweets are treated as emotion label for model fine-tuning  The tweets were fine-grined processing followed the rules in BIBREF9, BIBREF4, including duplicate tweets removing, the emotion hashtags must appearing in the last position of a tweet, and etc  The statis of tweets were summarized in Table TABREF17  Each tweet and corresponding emotion label composes an emotion classification dataset for pre-training 
Methodology ::: Fine-tuning
Since our emotion recognition task is treated as a sequence-level classification task, the model would be fine-tuned on the processed training data  Following the BERT construction, we take the first embedding vector which corresponds to the special token [CLS] from the final hidden state of the Transformer encoder  This vector represents the embedding vector of the corresponding conversation utterances which is denoted as $\mathbf {C} \in \mathbb {R}^{H}$, where $H$ is the embedding size  A dense neural layer is treated as a classification layer which consists of parameters $\mathbf {W} \in \mathbb {R}^{K\times H}$ and $\mathbf {b} \in \mathbb {R}^{K}$, where $K$ is the number of emotion class  The emotion prediction probabilities $\mathbf {P} \in \mathbb {R}^{K}$ are computed by a softmax activation function as
All the parameters in BERT and the classification layer would be fine-turned together to minimize the Negative Log Likelihood (NLL) loss function, as Equation (DISPLAY_FORM22), based on the ground truth emotion label $c$ 
In order to tackle the problem of highly unbalanced emotion labels, we apply weighted balanced warming on NLL loss function, as Equation (DISPLAY_FORM23), in the first epoch of fine-tuning procedure 
where $\mathbf {w}$ are the weights of corresponding emotion label $c$ which are computed and normalize by the frequency as
By adding the weighted balanced warming on NLL loss, the model could learn to predict the minor emotions (e g  anger and sadness) earlier and make the training process more stable  Since the major evaluation metrics micro F1-score is effect by the number of each label, we only apply the weighted balanced warming in first epoch to optimize the performance 
Experiments
Since the EmotionX challenge only provided the gold labels in training data, we pick the best performance model (weights) to predict the testing data  In this section, we present the experiment and evaluation results 
Experiments ::: Experimental Setup
The EmotionX challenge consists of $1,000$ dialogues for both Friends and EmotionPush  In all of our experiments, each dataset is separated into top 800 dialogues for training and last 200 dialogues for validation  Since the EmotionX challenge considers only the four emotions (anger, joy, neutral, and sadness) in the evaluation stage, we ignore all the data point corresponding to other emotions directly  The details of emotions distribution are shown in Table TABREF18 
The hyperparameters and training setup of our models (FriendsBERT and ChatBERT) are shown in Table TABREF25  Some common and easily implemented methods are selected as the baselines embedding methods and classification models  The baseline embedding methods are including bag-of-words (BOW), term frequency–inverse document frequency (TFIDF), and neural-based word embedding  The classification models are including Logistic Regression (LR), Random Forest (RF), TextCNN BIBREF10 with initial word embedding as GloVe BIBREF11, and our proposed model  All the experiment results are based on the best performances of validation results 
Experiments ::: Performance
The experiment results of validation on Friends are shown in Table TABREF19  The proposed model and baselines are evaluated based on the Precision (P ), Recall (R ), and F1-measure (F1) 
For the traditional baselines, namely BOW and TFIDF, we observe that they achieve surprising high F1 scores around $0 81$, however, the scores for Anger and Sadness are lower  This explains that traditional approaches tend to predict the labels with large sample size, such as Joy and Neutral, but fail to take of scarce samples even when an ensemble random forest classifier is adopted  In order to prevent the unbalanced learning, we choose the weighted loss mechanism for both TextCNN and causal modeling TextCNN (C-TextCNN), these models suffer less than the traditional baselines and achieve a slightly balance performance, where there are around 15% and 7% improvement on Anger and Sadness, respectively  We following adopt the casual utterance modeling to original TextCNN, mapping previous utterance as well as target utterance into model  The causal utterance modeling improve the C-TextCNN over TextCNN for 6%, 2% and 1% on Anger, Joy and overall F1 score  Motivated from these preliminary experiments, the proposed FriendsBERT also adopt the ideas of both weighted loss and causal utterance modeling  As compared to the original BERT, single sentence BERT (FriendsBERT-base-s), the proposed FriendsBERT-base improve 1% for Joy and overall F1, and 2% for Sadness  For the final validation performance, our proposed approach achieves the highest scores, which are $0 85$ and $0 86$ for FriendsBERT-base and FriendsBERT-large, respectively 
Overall, the proposed FriendsBERT successfully captures the sentence-level context-awarded information and outperforms all the baselines, which not only achieves high performance on large sample labels, but also on small sample labels  The similar settings are also adapted to EmotionPush dataset for the final evaluation 
Experiments ::: Evaluation Results
The testing dataset consists of 240 dialogues including $3,296$ and $3,536$ utterances in Friends and EmotionPush respectively  We re-train our FriendsBERT and ChatBERT with top 920 training dialogues and predict the evaluation results using the model performing the best validation results  The results are shown in Table TABREF29 and Table TABREF30  The present method achieves $81 5\%$ and $88 5\%$ micro F1-score on the testing dataset of Friends and EmotionPush, respectively 
Conclusion and Future work
In the present work, we propose FriendsBERT and ChatBERT for the multi-utterance emotion recognition task on EmotionLines dataset  The proposed models are adapted from BERT BIBREF5 with three main improvement during the model training procedure, which are the causal utterance modeling mechanism, specific model pre-training, and adapt weighted loss  The causal utterance modeling takes the advantages of the sentence-level context information during model inference  The specific model pre-training helps to against the bias in different text domain  The weighted loss avoids our model to only predict on large size sample  The effectiveness and generalizability of the proposed methods are demonstrated from the experiments 
In future work, we consider to include the conditional probabilistic constraint $P ({\rm Emo}_{B} | \hat{\rm Emo}_{A})$  Model should predict the emotion based on a certain understanding about context emotions  This might be more reasonable for guiding model than just predicting emotion of ${\rm Sentence}_B$ directly  In addition, due to the limitation of BERT input format, ambiguous number of input sentences is now becoming an important design requirement for our future work  Also, personality embedding development will be another future work of the emotion recognition  The personality embedding will be considered as sentence embedding injected into word embedding, and it seems this additional information can contribute some improvement potentially 
Context 2: Introduction
In June 2015, the operators of the online discussion site Reddit banned several communities under new anti-harassment rules  BIBREF0 used this opportunity to combine rich online data with computational methods to study a current question: Does eliminating these “echo chambers” diminish the amount of hate speech overall? Exciting opportunities like these, at the intersection of “thick” cultural and societal questions on the one hand, and the computational analysis of rich textual data on larger-than-human scales on the other, are becoming increasingly common 
Indeed, computational analysis is opening new possibilities for exploring challenging questions at the heart of some of the most pressing contemporary cultural and social issues  While a human reader is better equipped to make logical inferences, resolve ambiguities, and apply cultural knowledge than a computer, human time and attention are limited  Moreover, many patterns are not obvious in any specific context, but only stand out in the aggregate  For example, in a landmark study, BIBREF1 analyzed the authorship of The Federalist Papers using a statistical text analysis by focusing on style, based on the distribution of function words, rather than content  As another example, BIBREF2 studied what defines English haiku and showed how computational analysis and close reading can complement each other  Computational approaches are valuable precisely because they help us identify patterns that would not otherwise be discernible 
Yet these approaches are not a panacea  Examining thick social and cultural questions using computational text analysis carries significant challenges  For one, texts are culturally and socially situated  They reflect the ideas, values and beliefs of both their authors and their target audiences, and such subtleties of meaning and interpretation are difficult to incorporate in computational approaches  For another, many of the social and cultural concepts we seek to examine are highly contested — hate speech is just one such example  Choices regarding how to operationalize and analyze these concepts can raise serious concerns about conceptual validity and may lead to shallow or obvious conclusions, rather than findings that reflect the depth of the questions we seek to address 
These are just a small sample of the many opportunities and challenges faced in computational analyses of textual data  New possibilities and frustrating obstacles emerge at every stage of research, from identification of the research question to interpretation of the results  In this article, we take the reader through a typical research process that involves measuring social or cultural concepts using computational methods, discussing both the opportunities and complications that often arise  In the Reddit case, for example, hate speech is measured, however imperfectly, by the presence of particular words semi-automatically extracted from a machine learning algorithm  Operationalizations are never perfect translations, and are often refined over the course of an investigation, but they are crucial 
We begin our exploration with the identification of research questions, proceed through data selection, conceptualization, and operationalization, and end with analysis and the interpretation of results  The research process sounds more or less linear this way, but each of these phases overlaps, and in some instances turns back upon itself  The analysis phase, for example, often feeds back into the original research questions, which may continue to evolve for much of the project  At each stage, our discussion is critically informed by insights from the humanities and social sciences, fields that have focused on, and worked to tackle, the challenges of textual analysis—albeit at smaller scales—since their inception 
In describing our experiences with computational text analysis, we hope to achieve three primary goals  First, we aim to shed light on thorny issues not always at the forefront of discussions about computational text analysis methods  Second, we hope to provide a set of best practices for working with thick social and cultural concepts  Our guidance is based on our own experiences and is therefore inherently imperfect  Still, given our diversity of disciplinary backgrounds and research practices, we hope to capture a range of ideas and identify commonalities that will resonate for many  And this leads to our final goal: to help promote interdisciplinary collaborations  Interdisciplinary insights and partnerships are essential for realizing the full potential of any computational text analysis that involves social and cultural concepts, and the more we are able to bridge these divides, the more fruitful we believe our work will be 
Research questions
We typically start by identifying the questions we wish to explore  Can text analysis provide a new perspective on a “big question” that has been attracting interest for years? Or can we raise new questions that have only recently emerged, for example about social media? For social scientists working in computational analysis, the questions are often grounded in theory, asking: How can we explain what we observe? These questions are also influenced by the availability and accessibility of data sources  For example, the choice to work with data from a particular social media platform may be partly determined by the fact that it is freely available, and this will in turn shape the kinds of questions that can be asked  A key output of this phase are the concepts to measure, for example: influence; copying and reproduction; the creation of patterns of language use; hate speech  Computational analysis of text motivated by these questions is insight driven: we aim to describe a phenomenon or explain how it came about  For example, what can we learn about how and why hate speech is used or how this changes over time? Is hate speech one thing, or does it comprise multiple forms of expression? Is there a clear boundary between hate speech and other types of speech, and what features make it more or less ambiguous? In these cases, it is critical to communicate high-level patterns in terms that are recognizable 
This contrasts with much of the work in computational text analysis, which tends to focus on automating tasks that humans perform inefficiently  These tasks range from core linguistically motivated tasks that constitute the backbone of natural language processing, such as part-of-speech tagging and parsing, to filtering spam and detecting sentiment  Many tasks are motivated by applications, for example to automatically block online trolls  Success, then, is often measured by performance, and communicating why a certain prediction was made—for example, why a document was labeled as positive sentiment, or why a word was classified as a noun—is less important than the accuracy of the prediction itself  The approaches we use and what we mean by `success' are thus guided by our research questions 
Domain experts and fellow researchers can provide feedback on questions and help with dynamically revising them  For example, they may say “we already think we know that”, “that's too naïve”, “that doesn't reflect social reality” (negative); “two major camps in the field would give different answers to that question” (neutral); “we tried to look at that back in the 1960s, but we didn't have the technology” (positive); and “that sounds like something that people who made that archive would love”, “that's a really fundamental question” (very positive) 
Sometimes we also hope to connect to multiple disciplines  For example, while focusing on the humanistic concerns of an archive, we could also ask social questions such as “is this archive more about collaborative processes, culture-building or norm creation?” or “how well does this archive reflect the society in which it is embedded?" BIBREF3 used quantitative methods to tell a story about Darwin's intellectual development—an essential biographical question for a key figure in the history of science  At the same time, their methods connected Darwin's development to the changing landscape of Victorian scientific culture, allowing them to contrast Darwin's “foraging” in the scientific literature of his time to the ways in which that literature was itself produced  Finally, their methods provided a case study, and validation of technical approaches, for cognitive scientists who are interested in how people explore and exploit sources of knowledge 
Questions about potential “dual use” may also arise  Returning to our introductory example, BIBREF0 started with a deceptively simple question: if an internet platform eliminates forums for hate speech, does this impact hate speech in other forums? The research was motivated by the belief that a rising tide of online hate speech was (and is) making the internet increasingly unfriendly for disempowered groups, including minorities, women, and LBGTQ individuals  Yet the possibility of dual use troubled the researchers from the onset  Could the methodology be adopted to target the speech of groups like Black Lives Matter? Could it be adopted by repressive governments to minimize online dissent? While these concerns remained, they concluded that hypothetical dual use scenarios did not outweigh the tangible contribution this research could offer towards making the online environment more equal and just 
Data
The next step involves deciding on the data sources, collecting and compiling the dataset, and inspecting its metadata 
Data acquisition
Many scholars in the humanities and the social sciences work with sources that are not available in digital form, and indeed may never be digitized  Others work with both analogue and digitized materials, and the increasing digitization of archives has opened opportunities to study these archives in new ways  We can go to the canonical archive or open up something that nobody has studied before  For example, we might focus on major historical moments (French Revolution, post-Milosevic Serbia) or critical epochs (Britain entering the Victorian era, the transition from Latin to proto-Romance)  Or, we could look for records of how people conducted science, wrote and consumed literature, and worked out their philosophies 
A growing number of researchers work with born-digital sources or data  Born-digital data, e g , from social media, generally do not involve direct elicitation from participants and therefore enable unobtrusive measurements BIBREF5 , BIBREF6   In contrast, methods like surveys sometimes elicit altered responses from participants, who might adapt their responses to what they think is expected  Moreover, born-digital data is often massive, enabling large-scale studies of language and behavior in a variety of social contexts 
Still, many scholars in the social sciences and humanities work with multiple data sources  The variety of sources typically used means that more than one data collection method is often required  For example, a project examining coverage of a UK General Election, could draw data from traditional media, web archives, Twitter and Facebook, campaign manifestos, etc  and might combine textual analysis of these materials with surveys, laboratory experiments, or field observations offline  In contrast, many computational studies based on born-digital data have focused on one specific source, such as Twitter 
The use of born-digital data raises ethical concerns  Although early studies often treated privacy as a binary construct, many now acknowledge its complexity BIBREF7   Conversations on private matters can be posted online, visible for all, but social norms regarding what should be considered public information may differ from the data's explicit visibility settings  Often no informed consent has been obtained, raising concerns and challenges regarding publishing content and potentially harmful secondary uses BIBREF8 , BIBREF4  
Recently, concerns about potential harms stemming from secondary uses have led a number of digital service providers to restrict access to born-digital data  Facebook and Twitter, for example, have reduced or eliminated public access to their application programming interfaces (APIs) and expressed hesitation about allowing academic researchers to use data from their platforms to examine certain sensitive or controversial topics  Despite the seeming abundance of born-digital data, we therefore cannot take its availability for granted 
Working with data that someone else has acquired presents additional problems related to provenance and contextualisation  It may not always be possible to determine the criteria applied during the creation process  For example, why were certain newspapers digitized but not others, and what does this say about the collection? Similar questions arise with the use of born-digital data  For instance, when using the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine to gather data from archived web pages, we need to consider what pages were captured, which are likely missing, and why 
We must often repurpose born-digital data (e g , Twitter was not designed to measure public opinion), but data biases may lead to spurious results and limit justification for generalization  In particular, data collected via black box APIs designed for commercial, not research, purposes are likely to introduce biases into the inferences we draw, and the closed nature of these APIs means we rarely know what biases are introduced, let alone how severely they might impact our research BIBREF10   These, however, are not new problems  Historians, for example, have always understood that their sources were produced within particular contexts and for particular purposes, which are not always apparent to us 
Non-representative data can still be useful for making comparisons within a sample  In the introductory example on hate speech BIBREF0 , the Reddit forums do not present a comprehensive or balanced picture of hate speech: the writing is almost exclusively in English, the targets of hate speech are mainly restricted (e g , to black people, or women), and the population of writers is shaped by Reddit's demographics, which skew towards young white men  These biases limit the generalizability of the findings, which cannot be extrapolated to other languages, other types of hate speech, and other demographic groups  However, because the findings are based on measurements on the same sort of hate speech and the same population of writers, as long as the collected data are representative of this specific population, these biases do not pose an intractable validity problem if claims are properly restricted 
The size of many newly available datasets is one of their most appealing characteristics  Bigger datasets often make statistics more robust  The size needed for a computational text analysis depends on the research goal: When it involves studying rare events, bigger datasets are needed  However, larger is not always better  Some very large archives are “secretly” collections of multiple and distinct processes that no in-field scholar would consider related  For example, Google Books is frequently used to study cultural patterns, but the over-representation of scientific articles in Google books can be problematic BIBREF11   Even very large born-digital datasets usually cover limited timespans compared to, e g , the Gutenberg archive of British novels 
This stage of the research also raises important questions about fairness  Are marginalized groups, for example, represented in the tweets we have collected? If not, what types of biases might result from analyses relying on those tweets?
Local experts and “informants” can help navigate the data  They can help understand the role an archive plays in the time and place  They might tell us: Is this the central archive, or a peripheral one? What makes it unusual? Or they might tell us how certain underrepresented communities use a social media platform and advise us on strategies for ensuring our data collection includes their perspectives 
However, when it is practically infeasible to navigate the data in this way—for instance, when we cannot determine what is missing from Twitter's Streaming API or what webpages are left out of the Internet Archive—we should be open about the limitations of our analyses, acknowledging the flaws in our data and drawing cautious and reasonable conclusions from them  In all cases, we should report the choices we have made when creating or re-using any dataset 
Compiling data
After identifying the data source(s), the next step is compiling the data  This step is fundamental: if the sources cannot support a convincing result, no result will be convincing  In many cases, this involves defining a “core" set of documents and a “comparison" set  We often have a specific set of documents in mind: an author's work, a particular journal, a time period  But if we want to say that this “core" set has some distinctive property, we need a “comparison" set  Expanding the collection beyond the documents that we would immediately think of has the beneficial effect of increasing our sample size  Having more sources increases the chance that we will notice something consistent across many individually varying contexts 
Comparing sets of documents can sometimes support causal inference, presented as a contrast between a treatment group and a control  In BIBREF0 , the treatment consisted of the text written in the two forums that were eventually closed by Reddit  However, identifying a control group required a considerable amount of time and effort  Reddit is a diverse platform, with a wide variety of interactional and linguistic styles; it would be pointless to compare hate speech forums against forums dedicated to, say, pictures of wrecked bicycles  Chandrasekharan et al  used a matching design, populating the control group with forums that were as similar as possible to the treatment group, but were not banned from Reddit  The goal is to estimate the counterfactual scenario: in this case, what would have happened had the site not taken action against these specific forums? An ideal control would make it possible to distinguish the effect of the treatment — closing the forums — from other idiosyncratic properties of texts that were treated 
We also look for categories of documents that might not be useful  We might remove documents that are meta-discourse, like introductions and notes, or documents that are in a language that is not the primary language of the collection, or duplicates when we are working with archived web pages  However, we need to carefully consider the potential consequences of information we remove  Does its removal alter the data, or the interpretation of the data, we are analyzing? Are we losing anything that might be valuable at a later stage?
Labels and metadata
Sometimes all we have is documents, but often we want to look at documents in the context of some additional information, or metadata  This additional information could tell us about the creation of documents (date, author, forum), or about the reception of documents (flagged as hate speech, helpful review)  Information about text segments can be extremely valuable, but it is also prone to errors, inconsistencies, bias, and missing information  Examining metadata is a good way to check a collection's balance and representativeness  Are sources disproportionately of one form? Is the collection missing a specific time window? This type of curation can be extremely time consuming as it may require expert labeling, but it often leads to the most compelling results  Sometimes metadata are also used as target labels to develop machine learning models  But using them as a “ground truth” requires caution  Labels sometimes mean something different than we expect  For example, a down vote for a social media post could indicate that the content is offensive, or that the voter simply disagreed with the expressed view 
Conceptualization
A core step in many analyses is translating social and cultural concepts (such as hate speech, rumor, or conversion) into measurable quantities  Before we can develop measurements for these concepts (the operationalization step, or the “implementation” step as denoted by BIBREF12 ), we need to define them  In the conceptualization phase we often start with questions such as: who are the domain experts, and how have they approached the topic? We are looking for a definition of the concept that is flexible enough to apply on our dataset, yet formal enough for computational research  For example, our introductory study on hate speech BIBREF0 used a statement on hate speech produced by the European Union Court of Human Rights  The goal was not to implement this definition directly in software but to use it as a reference point to anchor subsequent analyses 
If we want to move beyond the use of ad hoc definitions, it can be useful to distinguish between what political scientists Adcock and Collier call the “background concept” and the “systematized concept” BIBREF13   The background concept comprises the full and diverse set of meanings that might be associated with a particular term  This involves delving into theoretical, conceptual, and empirical studies to assess how a concept has been defined by other scholars and, most importantly, to determine which definition is most appropriate for the particular research question and the theoretical framework in which it is situated  That definition, in turn, represents the systematized concept: the formulation that is adopted for the study 
It is important to consider that for social and cultural concepts there is no absolute ground truth  There are often multiple valid definitions for a concept (the “background” concept in the terms of Adcock and Collier), and definitions might be contested over time  This may be uncomfortable for computer scientists, whose primary measure of success is often based on comparing a model's output against “ground truth” or a “gold standard”, e g , by comparing a sentiment classifier's output against manual annotations  However, the notion of ground truth is uncommon in the humanities and the social sciences and it is often taken too far in machine learning  BIBREF14 notes that in literary criticism and the digital humanities more broadly “interpretation, ambiguity, and argumentation are prized far above ground truth and definitive conclusions"  BIBREF15 draw attention to the different attitudes of literary scholars and computational linguists towards ambiguity, stating that “In Computational Linguistics [  ] ambiguity is almost uniformly treated as a problem to be solved; the focus is on disambiguation, with the assumption that one true, correct interpretation exists " The latter is probably true for tasks such as spam filtering, but in the social sciences and the humanities many relevant concepts are fundamentally unobservable, such as latent traits of political actors BIBREF16 or cultural fit in organizations BIBREF17 , leading to validation challenges  Moreover, when the ground truth comes from people, it may be influenced by ideological priors, priming, simple differences of opinion or perspective, and many other factors BIBREF18   We return to this issue in our discussions on validation and analysis 
Operationalization
In this phase we develop measures (or, “operationalizations”, or “indicators”) for the concepts of interest, a process called “operationalization”  Regardless of whether we are working with computers, the output produced coincides with Adcock and Collier's “scores”—the concrete translation and output of the systematized concept into numbers or labels BIBREF13   Choices made during this phase are always tied to the question “Are we measuring what we intend to measure?” Does our operationalization match our conceptual definition? To ensure validity we must recognize gaps between what is important and what is easy to measure  We first discuss modeling considerations  Next, we describe several frequently used computational approaches and their limitations and strengths 
Modeling considerations
The variables (both predictors and outcomes) are rarely simply binary or categorical  For example, a study on language use and age could focus on chronological age (instead of, e g , social age BIBREF19 )  However, even then, age can be modeled in different ways  Discretization can make the modeling easier and various NLP studies have modeled age as a categorical variable BIBREF20   But any discretization raises questions: How many categories? Where to place the boundaries? Fine distinctions might not always be meaningful for the analysis we are interested in, but categories that are too broad can threaten validity  Other interesting variables include time, space, and even the social network position of the author  It is often preferable to keep the variable in its most precise form  For example, BIBREF21 perform exploration in the context of hypothesis testing by using latitude and longitude coordinates — the original metadata attached to geotagged social media such as tweets — rather than aggregating into administrative units such as counties or cities  This is necessary when such administrative units are unlikely to be related to the target concept, as is the case in their analysis of dialect differences  Focusing on precise geographical coordinates also makes it possible to recognize fine-grained effects, such as language variation across the geography of a city 
Using a particular classification scheme means deciding which variations are visible, and which ones are hidden BIBREF22   We are looking for a categorization scheme for which it is feasible to collect a large enough labeled document collection (e g , to train supervised models), but which is also fine-grained enough for our purposes  Classification schemes rarely exhibit the ideal properties, i e , that they are consistent, their categories are mutually exclusive, and that the system is complete BIBREF22   Borderline cases are challenging, especially with social and cultural concepts, where the boundaries are often not clear-cut  The choice of scheme can also have ethical implications BIBREF22   For example, gender is usually represented as a binary variable in NLP and computational models tend to learn gender-stereotypical patterns  The operationalization of gender in NLP has been challenged only recently BIBREF23 , BIBREF24 , BIBREF25  
Supervised and unsupervised learning are the most common approaches to learning from data  With supervised learning, a model learns from labeled data (e g , social media messages labeled by sentiment) to infer (or predict) these labels from unlabeled texts  In contrast, unsupervised learning uses unlabeled data  Supervised approaches are especially suitable when we have a clear definition of the concept of interest and when labels are available (either annotated or native to the data)  Unsupervised approaches, such as topic models, are especially useful for exploration  In this setting, conceptualization and operationalization may occur simultaneously, with theory emerging from the data BIBREF26   Unsupervised approaches are also used when there is a clear way of measuring a concept, often based on strong assumptions  For example, BIBREF3 measure “surprise” in an analysis of Darwin's reading decisions based on the divergence between two probability distributions 
From an analysis perspective, the unit of text that we are labeling (or annotating, or coding), either automatic or manual, can sometimes be different than one's final unit of analysis  For example, if in a study on media frames in news stories, the theoretical framework and research question point toward frames at the story level (e g , what is the overall causal analysis of the news article?), the story must be the unit of analysis  Yet it is often difficult to validly and reliably code a single frame at the story level  Multiple perspectives are likely to sit side-by-side in a story  Thus, an article on income inequality might point to multiple causes, such as globalization, education, and tax policies  Coding at the sentence level would detect each of these causal explanations individually, but this information would need to be somehow aggregated to determine the overall story-level frame  Sometimes scholars solve this problem by only examining headlines and lead paragraphs, arguing that based on journalistic convention, the most important information can be found at the beginning of a story  However, this leads to a return to a shorter, less nuanced analysis 
From a computational perspective, the unit of text can also make a huge difference, especially when we are using bag-of-words models, where word order within a unit does not matter  Small segments, like tweets, sometimes do not have enough information to make their semantic context clear  In contrast, larger segments, like novels, have too much variation, making it difficult to train focused models  Finding a good segmentation sometimes means combining short documents and subdividing long documents  The word “document" can therefore be misleading  But it is so ingrained in the common NLP lexicon that we use it anyway in this article 
For insight-driven text analysis, it is often critical that high-level patterns can be communicated  Furthermore, interpretable models make it easier to find spurious features, to do error analysis, and to support interpretation of results  Some approaches are effective for prediction, but harder to interpret  The value we place on interpretability can therefore influence the approach we choose  There is an increasing interest in developing interpretable or transparent models in the NLP and machine learning communities 
Annotation
Many studies involve human coders  Sometimes the goal is to fully code the data, but in a computational analysis we often use the labels (or annotations) to train machine learning models to automatically recognize them, and to identify language patterns that are associated with these labels  For example, for a project analyzing rumors online BIBREF27 , conversation threads were annotated along different dimensions, including rumor versus non-rumor and stance towards a rumor 
The collection of annotation choices make up an annotation scheme (or “codebook”)  Existing schemes and annotations can be useful as starting points
Context 3: Introduction
Grammar induction is the task of inducing hierarchical syntactic structure from data  Statistical approaches to grammar induction require specifying a probabilistic grammar (e g  formalism, number and shape of rules), and fitting its parameters through optimization  Early work found that it was difficult to induce probabilistic context-free grammars (PCFG) from natural language data through direct methods, such as optimizing the log likelihood with the EM algorithm BIBREF0 , BIBREF1   While the reasons for the failure are manifold and not completely understood, two major potential causes are the ill-behaved optimization landscape and the overly strict independence assumptions of PCFGs  More successful approaches to grammar induction have thus resorted to carefully-crafted auxiliary objectives BIBREF2 , priors or non-parametric models BIBREF3 , BIBREF4 , BIBREF5 , BIBREF6 , and manually-engineered features BIBREF7 , BIBREF8 to encourage the desired structures to emerge 
We revisit these aforementioned issues in light of advances in model parameterization and inference  First, contrary to common wisdom, we find that parameterizing a PCFG's rule probabilities with neural networks over distributed representations makes it possible to induce linguistically meaningful grammars by simply optimizing log likelihood  While the optimization problem remains non-convex, recent work suggests that there are optimization benefits afforded by over-parameterized models BIBREF9 , BIBREF10 , BIBREF11 , and we indeed find that this neural PCFG is significantly easier to optimize than the traditional PCFG  Second, this factored parameterization makes it straightforward to incorporate side information into rule probabilities through a sentence-level continuous latent vector, which effectively allows different contexts in a derivation to coordinate  In this compound PCFG—continuous mixture of PCFGs—the context-free assumptions hold conditioned on the latent vector but not unconditionally, thereby obtaining longer-range dependencies within a tree-based generative process 
To utilize this approach, we need to efficiently optimize the log marginal likelihood of observed sentences  While compound PCFGs break efficient inference, if the latent vector is known the distribution over trees reduces to a standard PCFG  This property allows us to perform grammar induction using a collapsed approach where the latent trees are marginalized out exactly with dynamic programming  To handle the latent vector, we employ standard amortized inference using reparameterized samples from a variational posterior approximated from an inference network BIBREF12 , BIBREF13  
On standard benchmarks for English and Chinese, the proposed approach is found to perform favorably against recent neural network-based approaches to grammar induction BIBREF14 , BIBREF15 , BIBREF16 , BIBREF17  
Probabilistic Context-Free Grammars
We consider context-free grammars (CFG) consisting of a 5-tuple INLINEFORM0 where INLINEFORM1 is the distinguished start symbol, INLINEFORM2 is a finite set of nonterminals, INLINEFORM3 is a finite set of preterminals, INLINEFORM6 is a finite set of terminal symbols, and INLINEFORM7 is a finite set of rules of the form,
INLINEFORM0
A probabilistic context-free grammar (PCFG) consists of a grammar INLINEFORM0 and rule probabilities INLINEFORM1 such that INLINEFORM2 is the probability of the rule INLINEFORM3   Letting INLINEFORM4 be the set of all parse trees of INLINEFORM5 , a PCFG defines a probability distribution over INLINEFORM6 via INLINEFORM7 where INLINEFORM8 is the set of rules used in the derivation of INLINEFORM9   It also defines a distribution over string of terminals INLINEFORM10 via
INLINEFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 , i e  the set of trees INLINEFORM1 such that INLINEFORM2 's leaves are INLINEFORM3   We will slightly abuse notation and use
INLINEFORM0
to denote the posterior distribution over the unobserved latent trees given the observed sentence INLINEFORM0 , where INLINEFORM1 is the indicator function 
Compound PCFGs
A compound probability distribution BIBREF19 is a distribution whose parameters are themselves random variables  These distributions generalize mixture models to the continuous case, for example in factor analysis which assumes the following generative process,
INLINEFORM0
Compound distributions provide the ability to model rich generative processes, but marginalizing over the latent parameter can be computationally intractable unless conjugacy can be exploited 
In this work, we study compound probabilistic context-free grammars whose distribution over trees arises from the following generative process: we first obtain rule probabilities via
INLINEFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 is a prior with parameters INLINEFORM1 (spherical Gaussian in this paper), and INLINEFORM2 is a neural network that concatenates the input symbol embeddings with INLINEFORM3 and outputs the sentence-level rule probabilities INLINEFORM4 ,
INLINEFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 denotes vector concatenation  Then a tree/sentence is sampled from a PCFG with rule probabilities given by INLINEFORM1 ,
INLINEFORM0
This can be viewed as a continuous mixture of PCFGs, or alternatively, a Bayesian PCFG with a prior on sentence-level rule probabilities parameterized by INLINEFORM0   Importantly, under this generative model the context-free assumptions hold conditioned on INLINEFORM3 , but they do not hold unconditionally  This is shown in Figure FIGREF3 (right) where there is a dependence path through INLINEFORM4 if it is not conditioned upon  Compound PCFGs give rise to a marginal distribution over parse trees INLINEFORM5 via
INLINEFORM0
where INLINEFORM0   The subscript in INLINEFORM1 denotes the fact that the rule probabilities depend on INLINEFORM2   Compound PCFGs are clearly more expressive than PCFGs as each sentence has its own set of rule probabilities  However, it still assumes a tree-based generative process, making it possible to learn latent tree structures 
Our motivation for the compound PCFG is based on the observation that for grammar induction, context-free assumptions are generally made not because they represent an adequate model of natural language, but because they allow for tractable training  We can in principle model richer dependencies through vertical/horizontal Markovization BIBREF21 , BIBREF22 and lexicalization BIBREF23   However such dependencies complicate training due to the rapid increase in the number of rules  Under this view, we can interpret the compound PCFG as a restricted version of some lexicalized, higher-order PCFG where a child can depend on structural and lexical context through a shared latent vector  We hypothesize that this dependence among siblings is especially useful in grammar induction from words, where (for example) if we know that watched is used as a verb then the noun phrase is likely to be a movie 
In contrast to the usual Bayesian treatment of PCFGs which places priors on global rule probabilities BIBREF3 , BIBREF4 , BIBREF6 , the compound PCFG assumes a prior on local, sentence-level rule probabilities  It is therefore closely related to the Bayesian grammars studied by BIBREF25 and BIBREF26 , who also sample local rule probabilities from a logistic normal prior for training dependency models with valence (DMV) BIBREF27  
Experimental Setup
Results and Discussion
Table TABREF23 shows the unlabeled INLINEFORM0 scores for our models and various baselines  All models soundly outperform right branching baselines, and we find that the neural PCFG/compound PCFG are strong models for grammar induction  In particular the compound PCFG outperforms other models by an appreciable margin on both English and Chinese  We again note that we were unable to induce meaningful grammars through a traditional PCFG with the scalar parameterization despite a thorough hyperparameter search  See lab:full for the full results (including corpus-level INLINEFORM1 ) broken down by sentence length 
Table TABREF27 analyzes the learned tree structures  We compare similarity as measured by INLINEFORM0 against gold, left, right, and “self" trees (top), where self INLINEFORM1 score is calculated by averaging over all 6 pairs obtained from 4 different runs  We find that PRPN is particularly consistent across multiple runs  We also observe that different models are better at identifying different constituent labels, as measured by label recall (Table TABREF27 , bottom)  While left as future work, this naturally suggests an ensemble approach wherein the empirical probabilities of constituents (obtained by averaging the predicted binary constituent labels from the different models) are used either to supervise another model or directly as potentials in a CRF constituency parser  Finally, all models seemed to have some difficulty in identifying SBAR/VP constituents which typically span more words than NP constituents 
Related Work
Grammar induction has a long and rich history in natural language processing  Early work on grammar induction with pure unsupervised learning was mostly negative BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 , BIBREF74 , though BIBREF75 reported some success on partially bracketed data  BIBREF76 and BIBREF2 were some of the first successful statistical approaches to grammar induction  In particular, the constituent-context model (CCM) of BIBREF2 , which explicitly models both constituents and distituents, was the basis for much subsequent work BIBREF27 , BIBREF7 , BIBREF8   Other works have explored imposing inductive biases through Bayesian priors BIBREF4 , BIBREF5 , BIBREF6 , modified objectives BIBREF42 , and additional constraints on recursion depth BIBREF77 , BIBREF48  
While the framework of specifying the structure of a grammar and learning the parameters is common, other methods exist  BIBREF43 consider a nonparametric-style approach to unsupervised parsing by using random subsets of training subtrees to parse new sentences  BIBREF46 utilize an incremental algorithm to unsupervised parsing which makes local decisions to create constituents based on a complex set of heuristics  BIBREF47 induce parse trees through cascaded applications of finite state models 
More recently, neural network-based approaches to grammar induction have shown promising results on inducing parse trees directly from words  BIBREF14 , BIBREF15 learn tree structures through soft gating layers within neural language models, while BIBREF16 combine recursive autoencoders with the inside-outside algorithm  BIBREF17 train unsupervised recurrent neural network grammars with a structured inference network to induce latent trees, and BIBREF78 utilize image captions to identify and ground constituents 
Our work is also related to latent variable PCFGs BIBREF79 , BIBREF80 , BIBREF81 , which extend PCFGs to the latent variable setting by splitting nonterminal symbols into latent subsymbols  In particular, latent vector grammars BIBREF82 and compositional vector grammars BIBREF83 also employ continuous vectors within their grammars  However these approaches have been employed for learning supervised parsers on annotated treebanks, in contrast to the unsupervised setting of the current work 
Conclusion
This work explores grammar induction with compound PCFGs, which modulate rule probabilities with per-sentence continuous latent vectors  The latent vector induces marginal dependencies beyond the traditional first-order context-free assumptions within a tree-based generative process, leading to improved performance  The collapsed amortized variational inference approach is general and can be used for generative models which admit tractable inference through partial conditioning  Learning deep generative models which exhibit such conditional Markov properties is an interesting direction for future work 
Acknowledgments
We thank Phil Blunsom for initial discussions which seeded many of the core ideas in the present work  We also thank Yonatan Belinkov and Shay Cohen for helpful feedback, and Andrew Drozdov for providing the parsed dataset from their DIORA model  YK is supported by a Google Fellowship  AMR acknowledges the support of NSF 1704834, 1845664, AWS, and Oracle 
Model Parameterization
We associate an input embedding INLINEFORM0 for each symbol INLINEFORM1 on the left side of a rule (i e  INLINEFORM2 ) and run a neural network over INLINEFORM3 to obtain the rule probabilities  Concretely, each rule type INLINEFORM4 is parameterized as follows, INLINEFORM5
where INLINEFORM0 is the product space INLINEFORM1 , and INLINEFORM2 are MLPs with two residual layers, INLINEFORM3
The bias terms for the above expressions (including for the rule probabilities) are omitted for notational brevity  In Figure FIGREF3 we use the following to refer to rule probabilities of different rule types, INLINEFORM0
where INLINEFORM0 denotes the set of rules with INLINEFORM1 on the left hand side 
The compound PCFG rule probabilities INLINEFORM0 given a latent vector INLINEFORM1 , INLINEFORM2
Again the bias terms are omitted for brevity, and INLINEFORM0 are as before where the first layer's input dimensions are appropriately changed to account for concatenation with INLINEFORM1  
Corpus/Sentence F 1 F_1 by Sentence Length
For completeness we show the corpus-level and sentence-level INLINEFORM0 broken down by sentence length in Table TABREF44 , averaged across 4 different runs of each model 
Experiments with RNNGs
For experiments on supervising RNNGs with induced trees, we use the parameterization and hyperparameters from BIBREF17 , which uses a 2-layer 650-dimensional stack LSTM (with dropout of 0 5) and a 650-dimensional tree LSTM BIBREF88 , BIBREF90 as the composition function 
Concretely, the generative story is as follows: first, the stack representation is used to predict the next action (shift or reduce) via an affine transformation followed by a sigmoid  If shift is chosen, we obtain a distribution over the vocabulary via another affine transformation over the stack representation followed by a softmax  Then we sample the next word from this distribution and shift the generated word onto the stack using the stack LSTM  If reduce is chosen, we pop the last two elements off the stack and use the tree LSTM to obtain a new representation  This new representation is shifted onto the stack via the stack LSTM  Note that this RNNG parameterization is slightly different than the original from BIBREF53 , which does not ignore constituent labels and utilizes a bidirectional LSTM as the composition function instead of a tree LSTM  As our RNNG parameterization only works with binary trees, we binarize the gold trees with right binarization for the RNNG trained on gold trees (trees from the unsupervised methods explored in this paper are already binary)  The RNNG also trains a discriminative parser alongside the generative model for evaluation with importance sampling  We use a CRF parser whose span score parameterization is similar similar to recent works BIBREF89 , BIBREF87 , BIBREF85 : position embeddings are added to word embeddings, and a bidirectional LSTM with 256 hidden dimensions is run over the input representations to obtain the forward and backward hidden states  The score INLINEFORM0 for a constituent spanning the INLINEFORM1 -th and INLINEFORM2 -th word is given by,
INLINEFORM0
where the MLP has a single hidden layer with INLINEFORM0 nonlinearity followed by layer normalization BIBREF84  
For experiments on fine-tuning the RNNG with the unsupervised RNNG, we take the discriminative parser (which is also pretrained alongside the RNNG on induced trees) to be the structured inference network for optimizing the evidence lower bound  We refer the reader to BIBREF17 and their open source implementation for additional details  We also observe that as noted by BIBREF17 , a URNNG trained from scratch on this version of PTB without punctuation failed to outperform a right-branching baseline 
The LSTM language model baseline is the same size as the stack LSTM (i e  2 layers, 650 hidden units, dropout of 0 5), and is therefore equivalent to an RNNG with completely right branching trees  The PRPN/ON baselines for perplexity/syntactic evaluation in Table TABREF30 also have 2 layers with 650 hidden units and 0 5 dropout  Therefore all models considered in Table TABREF30 have roughly the same capacity  For all models we share input/output word embeddings BIBREF86   Perplexity estimation for the RNNGs and the compound PCFG uses 1000 importance-weighted samples 
For grammaticality judgment, we modify the publicly available dataset from BIBREF56 to only keep sentence pairs that did not have any unknown words with respect to our PTB vocabulary of 10K words  This results in 33K sentence pairs for evaluation 
Nonterminal/Preterminal Alignments
Figure FIGREF50 shows the part-of-speech alignments and Table TABREF46 shows the nonterminal label alignments for the compound PCFG/neural PCFG 
Subtree Analysis
Table TABREF53 lists more examples of constituents within each subtree as the top principical component is varied  Due to data sparsity, the subtree analysis is performed on the full dataset  See section UID36 for more details 

ground_truth: Friends TV sitcom, Facebook messenger chats

prompt_front: You are given a scientific article and a question. Answer the question as concisely as you can, using a single phrase or sentence if possible. If the question cannot be answered based on the information in the article, write "unanswerable". If the question is a yes/no question, answer "yes", "no", or "unanswerable". Do not provide any explanation.

Please answer the questions based on the text provided below. What background do they have?
Context 2:  Usually settling on an annotation scheme requires several iterations, in which the guidelines are updated and annotation examples are added  For example, a political scientist could use a mixed deductive-inductive strategy for developing a codebook  She starts by laying out a set of theory-driven deductive coding rules, which means that the broad principles of the coding rules are laid out without examining examples first  These are then tested (and possibly adjusted) based on a sample of the data  In line with Adcock and Collier's notion of “content validity” BIBREF13 , the goal is to assess whether the codebook adequately captures the systematized concept  By looking at the data themselves, she gains a better sense of whether some things have been left out of the coding rules and whether anything is superfluous, misleading, or confusing  Adjustments are made and the process is repeated, often with another researcher involved 
The final annotations can be collected using a crowdsourcing platform, a smaller number of highly-trained annotators, or a group of experts  Which type of annotator to use should be informed by the complexity and specificity of the concept  For more complex concepts, highly-trained or expert annotators tend to produce more reliable results  However, complex concepts can sometimes be broken down into micro-tasks that can be performed independently in parallel by crowdsourced annotators  Concepts from highly specialized domains may require expert annotators  In all cases, however, some training will be required, and the training phase should involve continual checks of inter-annotator agreement (i e  intercoder reliability) or checks against a gold standard (e g  quizzes in crowdsourcing platforms) 
We also need to decide how inter-annotator agreement will be measured and what an acceptable level of agreement would be  Krippendorff's alpha is frequently used in the social sciences, but the right measure depends on the type of data and task  For manual coding, we can continually check inter-annotator agreement and begin introducing checks of intra-annotator agreement, too  For most communication scholars using only manual content analysis, an acceptable rate of agreement is achieved when Krippendorf's alpha reaches 0 80 or above  When human-coded data are used to validate machine learning algorithms, the reliability of the human-coded data is even more important  Disagreement between annotators can signal weaknesses of the annotation scheme, or highlight the inherent ambiguity in what we are trying to measure  Disagreement itself can be meaningful and can be integrated in subsequent analyses BIBREF28 , BIBREF29  
Data pre-processing
Preparing the data can be a complex and time-consuming process, often involving working with partially or wholly unstructured data  The pre-processing steps have a big impact on the operationalizations, subsequent analyses and reproducibility efforts BIBREF30 , and they are usually tightly linked to what we intend to measure  Unfortunately, these steps tend to be underreported, but documenting the pre-processing choices made is essential and is analogous to recording the decisions taken during the production of a scholarly edition or protocols in biomedical research  Data may also vary enormously in quality, depending on how it has been generated  Many historians, for example, work with text produced from an analogue original using Optical Character Recognition (OCR)  Often, there will be limited information available regarding the accuracy of the OCR, and the degree of accuracy may even vary within a single corpus (e g  where digitized text has been produced over a period of years, and the software has gradually improved)  The first step, then, is to try to correct for common OCR errors  These will vary depending on the type of text, the date at which the `original' was produced, and the nature of the font and typesetting 
One step that almost everyone takes is to tokenize the original character sequence into the words and word-like units  Tokenization is a more subtle and more powerful process than people expect  It is often done using regular expressions or scripts that have been circulating within the NLP community  Tokenization heuristics, however, can be badly confused by emoticons, creative orthography (e g , U$A, sh!t), and missing whitespace  Multi-word terms are also challenging  Treating them as a single unit can dramatically alter the patterns in text  Many words that are individually ambiguous have clear, unmistakable meanings as terms, like “black hole" or “European Union"  However, deciding what constitutes a multi-word term is a difficult problem  In writing systems like Chinese, tokenization is a research problem in its own right 
Beyond tokenization, common steps include lowercasing, removing punctuation, stemming (removing suffixes), lemmatization (converting inflections to a base lemma), and normalization, which has never been clearly defined, but often includes grouping abbreviations like “U S A " and “USA", ordinals like “1st" and “first", and variant spellings like “noooooo"  The main goal of these steps is to improve the ratio of tokens (individual occurrences) to types (the distinct things in a corpus)  Each step requires making additional assumptions about which distinctions are relevant: is “apple” different from “Apple”? Is “burnt” different from “burned”? Is “cool" different from “coooool"? Sometimes these steps can actively hide useful patterns, like social meaning BIBREF32   Some of us therefore try do as little modification as possible 
From a multilingual perspective, English and Chinese have an unusually simple inflectional system, and so it is statistically reasonable to treat each inflection as a unique word type  Romance languages have considerably more inflections than English; many indigenous North American languages have still more  For these languages, unseen data is far more likely to include previously-unseen inflections, and therefore, dealing with inflections is more important  On the other hand, the resources for handling inflections vary greatly by language, with European languages dominating the attention of the computational linguistics community thus far 
We sometimes also remove words that are not relevant to our goals, for example by calculating vocabulary frequencies  We construct a “stoplist” of words that we are not interested in  If we are looking for semantic themes we might remove function words like determiners and prepositions  If we are looking for author-specific styles, we might remove all words except function words  Some words are generally meaningful but too frequent to be useful within a specific collection  We sometimes also remove very infrequent words  Their occurrences are too low for robust patterns and removing them helps reducing the vocabulary size 
The choice of processing steps can be guided by theory or knowledge about the domain as well as experimental investigation  When we have labels, predictive accuracy of a model is a way to assess the effect of the processing steps  In unsupervised settings, it is more challenging to understand the effects of different steps  Inferences drawn from unsupervised settings can be sensitive to pre-processing choices BIBREF33   Stemming has been found to provide little measurable benefits for topic modeling and can sometimes even be harmful BIBREF34   All in all, this again highlights the need to document these steps 
Finally, we can also mark up the data, e g , by identifying entities (people, places, organizations, etc ) or parts of speech  Although many NLP tools are available for such tasks, they are often challenged by linguistic variation, such as orthographic variation in historical texts BIBREF35 and social media BIBREF32   Moreover, the performance of NLP tools often drops when applying them outside the training domain, such as applying tools developed on newswire texts to texts written by younger authors BIBREF36   Problems (e g , disambiguation in named entity recognition) are sometimes resolved using considerable manual intervention  This combination of the automated and the manual, however, becomes more difficult as the scale of the data increases, and the `certainty' brought by the latter may have to be abandoned 
Dictionary-based approaches
Dictionaries are frequently used to code texts in content analyses BIBREF37   Dictionaries consist of one or more categories (i e  word lists)  Sometimes the output is simply the number of category occurrences (e g , positive sentiment), thus weighting words within a category equally  In some other cases, words are assigned continuous scores  The high transparency of dictionaries makes them sometimes more suitable than supervised machine learning models  However, dictionaries should only be used if the scores assigned to words match how the words are used in the data (see BIBREF38 for a detailed discussion on limitations)  There are many off-the-shelf dictionaries available (e g , LIWC BIBREF39 )  These are often well-validated, but applying them on a new domain may not be appropriate without additional validation  Corpus- or domain-specific dictionaries can overcome limitations of general-purpose dictionaries 
The dictionaries are often manually compiled, but increasingly they are constructed semi-automatically (e g , BIBREF40 )  When we semi-automatically create a word list, we use automation to identify an initial word list, and human insight to filter it  By automatically generating the initial words lists, words can be identified that human annotators might have difficulty intuiting  By manually filtering the lists, we use our theoretical understanding of the target concept to remove spurious features 
In the introduction study, SAGE BIBREF41 was used to obtain a list of words that distinguished the text in the treatment group (subreddits that were closed by Reddit) from text in the control group (similar subreddits that were not closed)  The researchers then returned to the hate speech definition provided by the European Court of Human Rights, and manually filtered the top SAGE words based on this definition  Not all identified words fitted the definition  The others included: the names of the subreddits themselves, names of related subreddits, community-specific jargon that was not directly related to hate speech, and terms such as IQ and welfare, which were frequently used in discourses of hate speech, but had significant other uses  The word lists provided the measurement instrument for their main result, which is that the use of hate speech throughout Reddit declined after the two treatment subreddits were closed 
Supervised models
Supervised learning is frequently used to scale up analyses  For example, BIBREF42 wanted to analyze the motivations of Movember campaign participants  By developing a classifier based on a small set of annotations, they were able to expand the analysis to over 90k participants 
The choice of supervised learning model is often guided by the task definition and the label types  For example, to identify stance towards rumors based on sequential annotations, an algorithm for learning from sequential BIBREF43 or time series data BIBREF44 could be used  The features (sometimes called variables or predictors) are used by the model to make the predictions  They may vary from content-based features such as single words, sequences of words, or information about their syntactic structure, to meta-information such as user or network information  Deciding on the features requires experimentation and expert insight and is often called feature engineering  For insight-driven analysis, we are often interested in why a prediction has been made and features that can be interpreted by humans may be preferred  Recent neural network approaches often use simple features as input (such as word embeddings or character sequences), which requires less feature engineering but make interpretation more difficult 
Supervised models are powerful, but they can latch on to spurious features of the dataset  This is particularly true for datasets that are not well-balanced, and for annotations that are noisy  In our introductory example on hate speech in Reddit BIBREF0 , the annotations are automatically derived from the forum in which each post appears, and indeed, many of the posts in the forums (subreddits) that were banned by Reddit would be perceived by many as hate speech  But even in banned subreddits, not all of the content is hate speech (e g , some of the top features were self-referential like the name of the subreddit) but a classifier would learn a high weight for these features 
Even when expert annotations are available on the level of individual posts, spurious features may remain  BIBREF45 produced expert annotations of hate speech on Twitter  They found that one of the strongest features for sexism is the name of an Australian TV show, because people like to post sexist comments about the contestants  If we are trying to make claims about what inhibits or encourages hate speech, we would not want those claims to be tied to the TV show's popularity  Such problems are inevitable when datasets are not well-balanced over time, across genres, topics, etc  Especially with social media data, we lack a clear and objective definition of `balance' at this time 
The risk of supervised models latching on to spurious features reinforces the need for interpretability  Although the development of supervised models is usually performance driven, placing more emphasis on interpretability could increase the adoption of these models in insight-driven analyses  One way would be to only use models that are already somewhat interpretable, for example models that use a small number of human-interpretable features  Rather than imposing such restrictions, there is also work on generating post-hoc explanations for individual predictions (e g , BIBREF46 ), even when the underlying model itself is very complex 
Topic modeling
Topic models (e g , LDA BIBREF47 ) are usually unsupervised and therefore less biased towards human-defined categories  They are especially suited for insight-driven analysis, because they are constrained in ways that make their output interpretable  Although there is no guarantee that a “topic” will correspond to a recognizable theme or event or discourse, they often do so in ways that other methods do not  Their easy applicability without supervision and ready interpretability make topic models good for exploration  Topic models are less successful for many performance-driven applications  Raw word features are almost always better than topics for search and document classification  LSTMs and other neural network models are better as language models  Continuous word embeddings have more expressive power to represent fine-grained semantic similarities between words 
A topic model provides a different perspective on a collection  It creates a set of probability distributions over the vocabulary of the collection, which, when combined together in different proportions, best match the content of the collection  We can sort the words in each of these distributions in descending order by probability, take some arbitrary number of most-probable words, and get a sense of what (if anything) the topic is “about”  Each of the text segments also has its own distribution over the topics, and we can sort these segments by their probability within a given topic to get a sense of how that topic is used 
One of the most common questions about topic models is how many topics to use, usually with the implicit assumption that there is a “right” number that is inherent in the collection  We prefer to think of this parameter as more like the scale of a map or the magnification of a microscope  The “right” number is determined by the needs of the user, not by the collection  If the analyst is looking for a broad overview, a relatively small number of topics may be best  If the analyst is looking for fine-grained phenomena, a larger number is better 
After fitting the model, it may be necessary to circle back to an earlier phase  Topic models find consistent patterns  When authors repeatedly use a particular theme or discourse, that repetition creates a consistent pattern  But other factors can also create similar patterns, which look as good to the algorithm  We might notice a topic that has highest probability on French stopwords, indicating that we need to do a better job of filtering by language  We might notice a topic of word fragments, such as “ing”, “tion”, “inter”, indicating that we are not handling end-of-line hyphenation correctly  We may need to add to our stoplist or change how we curate multi-word terms 
Validation
The output of our measurement procedures (in the social sciences often called the “scores”) must now be assessed in terms of their reliability and validity with regard to the (systemized) concept  Reliability aims to capture repeatability, i e  the extent to which a given tool provides consistent results 
Validity assesses the extent to which a given measurement tool measures what it is supposed to measure  In NLP and machine learning, most models are primarily evaluated by comparing the machine-generated labels against an annotated sample  This approach presumes that the human output is the “gold standard" against which performance should be tested  In contrast, when the reliability is measured based on the output of different annotators, no coder is taken as the standard and the likelihood of coders reaching agreement by chance (rather than because they are “correct") is factored into the resulting statistic  Comparing against a “gold standard” suggests that the threshold for human inter- and intra-coder reliability should be particularly high 
Accuracy, as well as other measures such as precision, recall and F-score, are sometimes presented as a measure of validity, but if we do not have a genuinely objective determination of what something is supposed measure—as is often the case in text analysis—then accuracy is perhaps a better indication of reliability than of validity  In that case, validity needs to be assessed based on other techniques like those we discuss later in this section  It is also worth asking what level of accuracy is sufficient for our analysis and to what extent there may be an upper bound, especially when the labels are native to the data or when the notion of a “gold standard” is not appropriate 
For some in the humanities, validation takes the form of close reading, not designed to confirm whether the model output is correct, but to present what BIBREF48 refers to as a form of “further discovery in two directions”  Model outputs tell us something about the texts, while a close reading of the texts alongside those outputs tells us something about the models that can be used for more effective model building  Applying this circular, iterative process to 450 18th-century novels written in three languages, Piper was able to uncover a new form of “conversional novel” that was not previously captured in “literary history's received critical categories” BIBREF48  
Along similar lines, we can subject both the machine-generated output and the human annotations to another round of content validation  That is, take a stratified random sample, selecting observations from the full range of scores, and ask: Do these make sense in light of the systematized concept? If not, what seems to be missing? Or is something extraneous being captured? This is primarily a qualitative process that requires returning to theory and interrogating the systematized concept, indicators, and scores together  This type of validation is rarely done in NLP, but it is especially important when it is difficult to assess what drives a given machine learning model  If there is a mismatch between the scores and systematized concept at this stage, the codebook may need to be adjusted, human coders retrained, more training data prepared, algorithms adjusted, or in some instances, even a new analytical method adopted 
Other types of validation are also possible, such as comparing with other approaches that aim to capture the same concept, or comparing the output with external measures (e g , public opinion polls, the occurrence of future events)  We can also go beyond only evaluating the labels (or point estimates)  BIBREF16 used human judgments to not only assess the positional estimates from a scaling method of latent political traits but also to assess uncertainty intervals  Using different types of validation can increase our confidence in the approach, especially when there is no clear notion of ground truth 
Besides focusing on rather abstract evaluation measures, we could also assess the models in task-based settings using human experts  Furthermore, for insight-driven analyses, it can be more useful to focus on improving explanatory power than making small improvements in predictive performance 
Analysis
In this phase, we use our models to explore or answer our research questions  For example, given a topic model we can look at the connection between topics and metadata elements  Tags such as “hate speech" or metadata information imply a certain way of organizing the collection  Computational models provide another organization, which may differ in ways that provide more insight into how these categories manifest themselves, or fail to do so 
Moreover, when using a supervised approach, the “errors”, i e  disagreement between the system output and human-provided labels, can point towards interesting cases for closer analysis and help us reflect on our conceptualizations  In the words of BIBREF2 , they can be “opportunities for interpretation”  Other types of “failures” can be insightful as well  Sometimes there is a “dog that didn't bark” BIBREF49 –i e , something that everyone thinks we should have found, but we did not  Or, sometimes the failures are telling us about the existence of something in the data that nobody noticed, or thought important, until then (e g , the large number of travel journals in Darwin's reading lists) 
Computational text analysis is not a replacement for but rather an addition to the approaches one can take to analyze social and cultural phenomena using textual data  By moving back and forth between large-scale computational analyses and small-scale qualitative analyses, we can combine their strengths so that we can identify large-scale and long-term trends, but also tell individual stories  For example, the Reddit study on hate speech BIBREF0 raised various follow-up questions: Can we distinguish hate speech from people talking about hate speech? Did people find new ways to express hate speech? If so, did the total amount of online hate speech decrease after all? As possible next steps, a qualitative discourse analyst might examine a smaller corpus to investigate whether commenters were indeed expressing hate speech in new ways; a specialist in interview methodologies might reach out to commenters to better understand the role of online hate speech in their lives  Computational text analysis represents a step towards better understanding social and cultural phenomena, and it is in many cases better suited towards opening questions rather than closing them 
Conclusion
Insight-driven computational analysis of text is becoming increasingly common  It not only helps us see more broadly, it helps us see subtle patterns more clearly and allows us to explore radical new questions about culture and society  In this article we have consolidated our experiences, as scholars from very different disciplines, in analyzing text as social and cultural data and described how the research process often unfolds  Each of the steps in the process is time-consuming and labor-intensive  Each presents challenges  And especially when working across disciplines, the research often involves a fair amount of discussion—even negotiation—about what means of operationalization and approaches to analysis are appropriate and feasible  And yet, with a bit of perseverance and mutual understanding, conceptually sound and meaningful work results so that we can truly make use of the exciting opportunities rich textual data offers 
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by The Alan Turing Institute under the EPSRC grant EP/N510129/1  Dong Nguyen is supported with an Alan Turing Institute Fellowship (TU/A/000006)  Maria Liakata is a Turing fellow at 40%  We would also like to thank the participants of the “Bridging disciplines in analysing text as social and cultural data” workshop held at the Turing Institute (2017) for insightful discussions  The workshop was funded by a Turing Institute seed funding award to Nguyen and Liakata 

ground_truth: Unanswerable

prompt_front: You are given a scientific article and a question. Answer the question as concisely as you can, using a single phrase or sentence if possible. If the question cannot be answered based on the information in the article, write "unanswerable". If the question is a yes/no question, answer "yes", "no", or "unanswerable". Do not provide any explanation.

Please answer the questions based on the text provided below. which chinese datasets were used?
Context 4:  Therefore, for every word in our training set, we define our newly introduced ranking method, the Aggressive Feature Ranking (AFR), as: INLINEFORM0
In Figure FIGREF3 we illustrate the performance of all four methods in our industry prediction task on the development data  Note that for each method, we provide both the accuracy ( INLINEFORM0 ) and the average per-class accuracy ( INLINEFORM1 )  The Majority and All Words methods apply to all the features; therefore, they are represented as a straight line in the figure  The IGR and AFR methods are applied to varying subsets of the features using a 5% step 
Our experiments demonstrate that the word choice that the users make in their posts correlates with their industry  The first observation in Figure FIGREF3 is that the INLINEFORM0 is proportional to INLINEFORM1 ; as INLINEFORM2 increases, so does INLINEFORM3   Secondly, the best result on the development set is achieved by using the top 90% of the features using the AFR method  Lastly, the improvements of the IGR and AFR feature selections are not substantially better in comparison to All Words (at most 5% improvement between All Words and AFR), which suggest that only a few noisy features exist and most of the words play some role in shaping the “language" of an industry 
As a final evaluation, we apply on the test data the classifier found to work best on the development data (AFR feature selection, top 90% features), for an INLINEFORM0 of 0 534 and INLINEFORM1 of 0 477 
Leveraging User Metadata
Together with the industry information and the most recent postings of each blogger, we also download a number of accompanying profile elements  Using these additional elements, we explore the potential of incorporating users' metadata in our classifiers 
Table TABREF7 shows the different user metadata we consider together with their coverage percentage (not all users provide a value for all of the profile elements)  With the exception of the gender field, the remaining metadata elements shown in Table TABREF7 are completed by the users as a freely editable text field  This introduces a considerable amount of noise in the set of possible metadata values  Examples of noise in the occupation field include values such as “Retired”, “I work ”, or “momma” which are not necessarily informative for our industry prediction task 
To examine whether the metadata fields can help in the prediction of a user's industry, we build classifiers using the different metadata elements  For each metadata element that has a textual value, we use all the words in the training set for that field as features  The only two exceptions are the state field, which is encoded as one feature that can take one out of 50 different values representing the 50 U S  states; and the gender field, which is encoded as a feature with a distinct value for each user gender option: undefined, male, or female 
As shown in Table TABREF9 , we build four different classifiers using the multinomial NB algorithm: Occu (which uses the words found in the occupation profile element), Intro (introduction), Inter (interests), and Gloc (combined gender, city, state) 
In general, all the metadata classifiers perform better than our majority baseline ( INLINEFORM0 of 18 88%)  For the Gloc classifier, this result is in alignment with previous studies BIBREF24   However, the only metadata classifier that outperforms the content classifier is the Occu classifier, which despite missing and noisy occupation values exceeds the content classifier's performance by an absolute 3 2% 
To investigate the promise of combining the five different classifiers we have built so far, we calculate their inter-prediction agreement using Fleiss's Kappa BIBREF25 , as well as the lower prediction bounds using the double fault measure BIBREF26   The Kappa values, presented in the lower left side of Table TABREF10 , express the classification agreement for categorical items, in this case the users' industry  Lower values, especially values below 30%, mean smaller agreement  Since all five classifiers have better-than-baseline accuracy, this low agreement suggests that their predictions could potentially be combined to achieve a better accumulated result 
Moreover, the double fault measure values, which are presented in the top-right hand side of Table TABREF10 , express the proportion of test cases for which both of the two respective classifiers make false predictions, essentially providing the lowest error bound for the pairwise ensemble classifier performance  The lower those numbers are, the greater the accuracy potential of any meta-classification scheme that combines those classifiers  Once again, the low double fault measure values suggest potential gain from a combination of the base classifiers into an ensemble of models 
After establishing the promise of creating an ensemble of classifiers, we implement two meta-classification approaches  First, we combine our classifiers using features concatenation (or early fusion)  Starting with our content-based classifier (Text), we successively add the features derived from each metadata element  The results, both micro- and macro-accuracy, are presented in Table TABREF12   Even though all these four feature concatenation ensembles outperform the content-based classifier in the development set, they fail to outperform the Occu classifier 
Second, we explore the potential of using stacked generalization (or late fusion) BIBREF27   The base classifiers, referred to as L0 classifiers, are trained on different folds of the training set and used to predict the class of the remaining instances  Those predictions are then used together with the true label of the training instances to train a second classifier, referred to as the L1 classifier: this L1 is used to produce the final prediction on both the development data and the test data  Traditionally, stacking uses different machine learning algorithms on the same training data  However in our case, we use the same algorithm (multinomial NB) on heterogeneous data (i e , different types of data such as content, occupation, introduction, interests, gender, city and state) in order to exploit all available sources of information 
The ensemble learning results on the development set are shown in Table TABREF12   We notice a constant improvement for both metrics when adding more classifiers to our ensemble except for the Gloc classifier, which slightly reduces the performance  The best result is achieved using an ensemble of the Text, Occu, Intro, and Inter L0 classifiers; the respective performance on the test set is an INLINEFORM0 of 0 643 and an INLINEFORM1 of 0 564  Finally, we present in Figure FIGREF11 the prediction accuracy for the final classifier for each of the different industries in our test dataset  Evidently, some industries are easier to predict than others  For example, while the Real Estate and Religion industries achieve accuracy figures above 80%, other industries, such as the Banking industry, are predicted correctly in less than 17% of the time  Anecdotal evidence drawn from the examination of the confusion matrix does not encourage any strong association of the Banking class with any other  The misclassifications are roughly uniform across all other classes, suggesting that the users in the Banking industry use language in a non-distinguishing way 
Qualitative Analysis
In this section, we provide a qualitative analysis of the language of the different industries 
Top-Ranked Words
To conduct a qualitative exploration of which words indicate the industry of a user, Table TABREF14 shows the three top-ranking content words for the different industries using the AFR method 
Not surprisingly, the top ranked words align well with what we would intuitively expect for each industry  Even though most of these words are potentially used by many users regardless of their industry in our dataset, they are still distinguished by the AFR method because of the different frequencies of these words in the text of each industry 
Industry-specific Word Similarities
Next, we examine how the meaning of a word is shaped by the context in which it is uttered  In particular, we qualitatively investigate how the speakers' industry affects meaning by learning vector-space representations of words that take into account such contextual information  To achieve this, we apply the contextualized word embeddings proposed by Bamman et al  Bamman14, which are based on an extension of the “skip-gram" language model BIBREF28  
In addition to learning a global representation for each word, these contextualized embeddings compute one deviation from the common word embedding representation for each contextual variable, in this case, an industry option  These deviations capture the terms' meaning variations (shifts in the INLINEFORM0 -dimensional space of the representations, where INLINEFORM1 in our experiments) in the text of the different industries, however all the embeddings are in the same vector space to allow for comparisons to one another 
Using the word representations learned for each industry, we present in Table TABREF16 the terms in the Technology and the Tourism industries that have the highest cosine similarity with a job-related word, customers  Similarly, Table TABREF17 shows the words in the Environment and the Tourism industries that are closest in meaning to a general interest word, food  More examples are given in the Appendix SECREF8  
The terms that rank highest in each industry are noticeably different  For example, as seen in Table TABREF17 , while food in the Environment industry is similar to nutritionally and locally, in the Tourism industry the same word relates more to terms such as delicious and pastries  These results not only emphasize the existing differences in how people in different industries perceive certain terms, but they also demonstrate that those differences can effectively be captured in the resulting word embeddings 
Emotional Orientation per Industry and Gender
As a final analysis, we explore how words that are emotionally charged relate to different industries  To quantify the emotional orientation of a text, we use the Positive Emotion and Negative Emotion categories in the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) dictionary BIBREF29   The LIWC dictionary contains lists of words that have been shown to correlate with the psychological states of people that use them; for example, the Positive Emotion category contains words such as “happy,” “pretty,” and “good ”
For the text of all the users in each industry we measure the frequencies of Positive Emotion and Negative Emotion words normalized by the text's length  Table TABREF20 presents the industries' ranking for both categories of words based on their relative frequencies in the text of each industry 
We further perform a breakdown per-gender, where we once again calculate the proportion of emotionally charged words in each industry, but separately for each gender  We find that the industry rankings of the relative frequencies INLINEFORM0 of emotionally charged words for the two genders are statistically significantly correlated, which suggests that regardless of their gender, users use positive (or negative) words with a relative frequency that correlates with their industry  (In other words, even if e g , Fashion has a larger number of women users, both men and women working in Fashion will tend to use more positive words than the corresponding gender in another industry with a larger number of men users such as Automotive )
Finally, motivated by previous findings of correlations between job satisfaction and gender dominance in the workplace BIBREF30 , we explore the relationship between the usage of Positive Emotion and Negative Emotion words and the gender dominance in an industry  Although we find that there are substantial gender imbalances in each industry (Appendix SECREF9 ), we did not find any statistically significant correlation between the gender dominance ratio in the different industries and the usage of positive (or negative) emotional words in either gender in our dataset 
Conclusion
In this paper, we examined the task of predicting a social media user's industry  We introduced an annotated dataset of over 20,000 blog users and applied a content-based classifier in conjunction with two feature selection methods for an overall accuracy of up to 0 534, which represents a large improvement over the majority class baseline of 0 188 
We also demonstrated how the user metadata can be incorporated in our classifiers  Although concatenation of features drawn both from blog content and profile elements did not yield any clear improvements over the best individual classifiers, we found that stacking improves the prediction accuracy to an overall accuracy of 0 643, as measured on our test dataset  A more in-depth analysis showed that not all industries are equally easy to predict: while industries such as Real Estate and Religion are clearly distinguishable with accuracy figures over 0 80, others such as Banking are much harder to predict 
Finally, we presented a qualitative analysis to provide some insights into the language of different industries, which highlighted differences in the top-ranked words in each industry, word semantic similarities, and the relative frequency of emotionally charged words 
Acknowledgments
This material is based in part upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (#1344257) and by the John Templeton Foundation (#48503)  Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or the John Templeton Foundation 
Additional Examples of Word Similarities

ground_truth: Answer with content missing: (Data section) Chinese with version 5.1 of the Chinese Penn Treebank (CTB)