Approaches for Automatically Tagging Affect: Steps Toward an Effective and Efficient Tool
The tagging of discourse is important not only for natural language processing research, but for many applications in the social sciences as well. This chapter describes an evaluation of a range of different tagging techniques to automatically determine the attitude of speakers in transcribed psychiatric dialogues. It presents results in a marriage-counseling domain that classifies the attitude and emotional commitment of the participants to a particular topic of discussion. It also gives results from the Switchboard Corpus to facilitate comparison for future work. Finally, it describes a new Java tool that learns attitude classifications using our techniques and provides a flexible, easy to use platform for tagging of texts.
Keywordsaffect automatic tagging cats stochastic affect affect tool psychological models
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Boucouvalas, A. C. and Zhe, X. (2002) Text-to-emotion engine for real time internet communication. In Proc. International Symposium on CSNDSP 2002. 164–168.Google Scholar
- Chu-Carroll, J. and Carpenter, B. (1999) Vector-based natural language call routing. Computational Linguistics. 361–388.Google Scholar
- Godfrey, J., Holliman, E., and McDaniel, J. (1992) Switchboard: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. In Proc. IEEE Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing. 517–520.Google Scholar
- Goertzel, B., Silverman, K., Hartley, C., S. Bugaj, S., and Ross, M. (2000) The baby webmind project. In Proc. Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour.Google Scholar
- Hodson, J. H., Shields, C. G., and Rousseau, S. L. (2003) Disengaging communication in later-life couples coping with brest cancer. Family Systems and Health. 145–163. Campbell, Maryland.Google Scholar
- Liu, H., Lieberman, H., and Selker, T. (2003) A model of textual affect sensing using real-world knowledge. In Proc. Seventh International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 125–132.Google Scholar
- Shields, C. (1997) Annotation scheme. For Center for Future Health, University of Rochester. Rochester, New York.Google Scholar
- Stolcke, A., Ries, K., Coccaro, N., Shriberg, E., Bates, R., Jurafsky, D., Taylor, P., and Martin, R. (2000) Dialogue act modeling for automatic tagging and recognition of conversational speech. Computational Linguistics. 339–373.Google Scholar
- Wu, T., Khan, F. M., Fisher, T. A., Shuler, L. A., and Pottenger, W. M. (2002) Posting act tagging using transformation-based learning. In Proc. Workshop on Foundations of Data Mining and Discovery, IEEE International Conference on Data Mining.Google Scholar