2018
DOI: 10.1108/oir-05-2017-0153
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Gender bias in machine learning for sentiment analysis

Abstract: Purpose: This paper investigates whether machine learning induces gender biases in the sense of results that are more accurate for male authors than for female authors. It also investigates whether training separate male and female variants could improve the accuracy of machine learning for sentiment analysis. Design/methodology/approach: This article uses ratings-balanced sets of reviews of restaurants and hotels (3 sets) to train algorithms with and without gender selection. Findings: Accuracy is higher on f… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Existing opinion annotations schemes (i.e., OpinionMining-ML, EmotionML and SentiML) fail to deal with many situations which, if annotated well, could be influential for developing better opinion mining systems. Problems like contextual ambiguities [6,7], lack of semantics interpretation on sentence level, tackling temporal expressions [8,9], identification of opinion holders [10][11][12], opinion aggregation and their comparison [13,14] remain unanswered by these annotations. Each of the opinion annotation schemes have positive and negative features associated with them but there is a need to have a strong opinion annotation which combines positive features of existing schemes (like flexible emotion vocabulary choice in EmotionML, feature-level processing of OpinionMining-ML, etc.)…”
Section: Motivation and Contributionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Existing opinion annotations schemes (i.e., OpinionMining-ML, EmotionML and SentiML) fail to deal with many situations which, if annotated well, could be influential for developing better opinion mining systems. Problems like contextual ambiguities [6,7], lack of semantics interpretation on sentence level, tackling temporal expressions [8,9], identification of opinion holders [10][11][12], opinion aggregation and their comparison [13,14] remain unanswered by these annotations. Each of the opinion annotation schemes have positive and negative features associated with them but there is a need to have a strong opinion annotation which combines positive features of existing schemes (like flexible emotion vocabulary choice in EmotionML, feature-level processing of OpinionMining-ML, etc.)…”
Section: Motivation and Contributionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recent literature has questioned the promises of algorithms’ objectivity (Bilić 2016; Porter 1996; Thelwall 2018). For example, O’Neil (2016) has suggested, drawing from her own experience as a mathematician in finance, that an algorithm used for HR processes, such as employee recruitment, evaluation, or performance appraisals, are still impaired by racial and gender biases.…”
Section: Algorithm-based Decision-making: Objective Unbiased and Efmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We employ multiple cross-domain datasets from the English language, IMDB (Maas et al, 2011), Yelp 5 , TripAdvisor (Thelwall, 2018), Clothing 6 , UCI Drug 7 , WebMD 8 as shown in Table 1. We train the Logistic Regression (LR) classifier using cross-domain datasets and use the trained model to predict the semantic orientations of reviews in our machine-translated corpus.…”
Section: Transfer Learning-based Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%