In this paper we restrict ourselves to gender recognition, and it is also this aspect we will discuss further in this section.A group which is very active in studying gender recognition (among other traits) on the basis of text is that around Moshe Koppel. 2002) they report gender recognition on formal written texts taken from the British National Corpus (and also give a good overview of previous work), reaching about 80% correct attributions using function words and parts of speech.

Webcam kars l kl sex-43Webcam kars l kl sex-86

Webcam kars l kl sex personal dating ads crossdressers

Two other machine learning systems, Linguistic Profiling and Ti MBL, come close to this result, at least when the input is first preprocessed with PCA. Introduction In the Netherlands, we have a rather unique resource in the form of the Twi NL data set: a daily updated collection that probably contains at least 30% of the Dutch public tweet production since 2011 (Tjong Kim Sang and van den Bosch 2013).

However, as any collection that is harvested automatically, its usability is reduced by a lack of reliable metadata.

The age component of the system is described in (Nguyen et al. The authors apply logistic and linear regression on counts of token unigrams occurring at least 10 times in their corpus.

The paper does not describe the gender component, but the first author has informed us that the accuracy of the gender recognition on the basis of 200 tweets is about 87% (Nguyen, personal communication). (2014) did a crowdsourcing experiment, in which they asked human participants to guess the gender and age on the basis of 20 to 40 tweets. on this, we will still take the biological gender as the gold standard in this paper, as our eventual goal is creating metadata for the Twi NL collection. Experimental Data and Evaluation In this section, we first describe the corpus that we used in our experiments (Section 3.1).

Their highest score when using just text features was 75.5%, testing on all the tweets by each author (with a train set of 3.3 million tweets and a test set of about 418,000 tweets). (2012) used SVMlight to classify gender on Nigerian twitter accounts, with tweets in English, with a minimum of 50 tweets.

Their features were hash tags, token unigrams and psychometric measurements provided by the Linguistic Inquiry of Word Count software (LIWC; (Pennebaker et al. Although LIWC appears a very interesting addition, it hardly adds anything to the classification.

For gender, the system checks the profile for about 150 common male and 150 common female first names, as well as for gender related words, such as father, mother, wife and husband.

If no cue is found in a user s profile, no gender is assigned.

When using all user tweets, they reached an accuracy of 88.0%.

An interesting observation is that there is a clear class of misclassified users who have a majority of opposite gender users in their social network. When adding more information sources, such as profile fields, they reach an accuracy of 92.0%.

The general quality of the assignment is unknown, but in the (for this purpose) rather unrepresentative sample of users we considered for our own gender assignment corpus (see below), we find that about 44% of the users are assigned a gender, which is correct in about 87% of the cases.