• Contenu principal
  • Menu
OpenEdition Books
  • Accueil
  • Catalogue de 15981 livres
  • Éditeurs
  • Auteurs
  • Facebook
  • X
  • Partager
    • Facebook

    • X

    • Accueil
    • Catalogue de 15981 livres
    • Éditeurs
    • Auteurs
  • Ressources numériques en sciences humaines et sociales

    • OpenEdition
  • Nos plateformes

    • OpenEdition Books
    • OpenEdition Journals
    • Hypothèses
    • Calenda
  • Bibliothèques

    • OpenEdition Freemium
  • Suivez-nous

  • Lettre d’information
OpenEdition Search

Redirection vers OpenEdition Search.

À quel endroit ?
  • Accademia University Press
  • ›
  • Collana dell'Associazione Italiana di Li...
  • ›
  • Proceedings of the Seventh Italian Confe...
  • ›
  • Contributed Papers
  • ›
  • Personal-ITY: A Novel YouTube-based Corp...
  • Accademia University Press
  • Accademia University Press
    Accademia University Press
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Liens vers le livre
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Formats de lecture

    Plan

    Plan détaillé Texte intégral 1. Introduction 2. Related Work 3. Personal-ITY 4. Preliminary Experiments 5. Conclusions Bibliographie Notes de bas de page Auteurs

    Proceedings of the Seventh Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2020

    Ce livre est recensé par

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    Personal-ITY: A Novel YouTube-based Corpus for Personality Prediction in Italian

    Elisa Bassignana, Malvina Nissim et Viviana Patti

    p. 44-50

    Résumé

    We present a novel corpus for personality prediction in Italian, containing a larger number of authors and a different genre compared to previously available resources. The corpus is built exploiting Distant Supervision, assigning Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) labels to YouTube comments, and can lend itself to a variety of experiments. We report on preliminary experiments on Personal-ITY, which can serve as a baseline for future work, showing that some types are easier to predict than others, and discussing the perks of cross-dataset prediction.

    Remerciements

    The work of Elisa Bassignana was partially carried out at the University of Groningen within the framework of the Erasmus+ program 2019/20.

    Texte intégral Bibliographie Notes de bas de page Auteurs

    Texte intégral

    1. Introduction

    1When faced with the same situation, different humans behave differently. This is, of course, due to different backgrounds, education paths, and life experiences, but according to psychologists there is another important aspect: personality (Snyder 1983; Parks and Guay 2009).

    2Human Personality is a psychological construct aimed at explaining the wide variety of human behaviours in terms of a few, stable and measurable individual characteristics (Vinciarelli and Mohammadi 2014).

    3Such characteristics are formalised in Trait Models, and there are currently two of these models that are widely adopted: Big Five (John and Srivastava 1999) and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Myers and Myers 1995). The first examines five dimensions (Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism) and for each of them assigns a score in a range. The second one, instead, considers 16 fixed personality types, coming from the combination of the opposite poles of 4 main dimensions (Extravert-Introvert, iNtuitive-Sensing, Feeling-Thinking, Perceiving-Judging). Examples of full personality types are therefore four letter labels such as ENTJ or ISFP.

    4The tests used to detect prevalence of traits include human judgements regarding semantic similarity and relations between adjectives that people use to describe themselves and others. This is because language is believed to be a prime carrier of personality traits (Schwartz et al. 2013). This aspect, together with the progressive increase of available user-generated data on social media, has prompted the task of Personality Detection, i.e., the automatic prediction of personality from written texts (Youyou, Kosinski, and Stillwell 2015; Argamon et al. 2009; Litvinova et al. 2016; Whelan and Davies 2006).

    5Personality detection can be useful in predicting life outcomes such as substance use, political attitudes and physical health. Other fields of application are marketing, politics and psychological and social assessment.

    6As a contribution to personality detection in Italian, we present Personal-ITY, a new corpus of YouTube comments annotated with MBTI personality traits, and some preliminary experiments to highlight its characteristics and test its potential. The corpus is made available to the community1.

    2. Related Work

    7There exist a few datasets annotated for personality traits. For the shared tasks organised within the Workshop on Computational Personality Recognition (Celli et al. 2013), two datasets annotated with the Big Five traits have been released in 2013 (Essays (Pennebaker and King 2000) and myPersonality2) and two in 2014 (YouTube Personality Dataset (Biel and Gatica-Perez 2013) and Mobile Phones interactions (Staiano et al. 2012)).

    8For the 2015 PAN Author Profiling Shared Task (Pardo et al. 2015), personality was added to gender and age in the profiling task, with tweets in English, Spanish, Italian and Dutch. These are also annotated according to the Big Five model.

    9Still in the Big Five landscape, collected a dataset of FaceBook comments (700 millions words) written by 136.000 users who shared their status updates. Interesting correlations were observed between word usage and personality traits.

    10If looking at data labelled with the MBTI traits, we find a corpus of 1.2M English tweets annotated with personality and gender (Plank and Hovy 2015), and the multilingual TwiSty (Verhoeven, Daelemans, and Plank 2016). The latter is a corpus of data collected from Twitter annotated with MBTI personality labels and gender for six languages (Dutch, German, French, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish) and a total of 18,168 authors. We are interested in the Italian portion of TwiSty.

    11Table 1 contains an overview of the available Italian corpora labelled with personality traits. We include our own, which is described in Section 3.

    Table 1: Summary of Italian corpora with personality labels. Avg.: average tokens per user

    Corpus

    Model

    # user

    Avg.

    PAN2015

    Big Five

    38

    1258

    TwiSty

    MBTI

    490

    21.343

    Personal-ITY

    MBTI

    1048

    10.585

    12Regarding detection approaches, tested the usefulness of different sets of textual features making use of mostly SVMs.

    13At the PAN 2015 challenge (see above) a variety of algorithms were tested (such as Random Forests, decision trees, logistic regression for classification, and also various regression models), but overall most successful participants used SVMs. Regarding features, participants approached the task with combinations of style-based and content-based features, as well as their combination in n-gram models (Pardo et al. 2015).

    14Experiments on TwiSty were performed by the corpus creators themselves Experiments on TwiSty were performed by the corpus creators themselves Experiments on TwiSty were performed by the corpus creators themselves Experiments on TwiSty were performed by the corpus creators themselves Experiments on TwiSty were performed by the corpus creators themselves corpus creators themselves using a LinearSVM with word (1-2) and character (3-4) n-grams. Their results (reported in Table 2 for the Italian portion of the dataset) are obtained through 10-fold cross-validation; the model is compared to a weighted random baseline (WRB) and a majority baseline (MAJ).

    Table 2: TwiSty scores from the original paper. Note that all results are reported as micro-average F-score

    Trait

    WRB

    MAJ

    f-score

    EI

    65.54

    77.88

    77.78

    NS

    75.60

    85.78

    79.21

    FT

    50.31

    53.95

    52.13

    PJ

    50.19

    53.05

    47.01

    Avg

    60.41

    67.67

    64.06

    3. Personal-ITY

    15First, we explain two major choices that we made in creating Personal-ITY, namely the source of the data and the trait model. Second, we describe in detail the procedure we followed to construct the corpus. Lastly, we provide a description of the resulting dataset.

    Data

    16YouTube is the source of data for our corpus. The decision is grounded on the fact that compared to the more commonly collected tweets, YouTube comments can be longer, so that users are freer to express themselves without limitations. Additionally, there is a substantial amount of available data on the YouTube platform, which is easy to access thanks to the free YouTube APIs.

    Trait Model

    17Our model of choice is the MBTI. The first benefit of this decision is that this model is easy to use in association with a Distant Supervision approach (just checking if a message contains one of the 16 personality types; see Section 3.1). Another benefit is related to the existence of TwiSty. Since both TwiSty and Personal-ITY implement the MBTI model, analyses and experiments over personality detection can be carried out also in a cross-domain setting.

    Ethics Statement

    18Personality profiling must be carefully evaluated from an ethical point of view. In particular, often, personality detection involves ethical dilemmas regarding appropriate utilization and interpretations of the prediction outcomes (Weiner and Greene 2017). Concerns have been raised regarding the inappropriate use of these tests with respect to invasion of privacy, cultural bias and confidentiality (Mehta et al. 2019).

    19The data included in the Personal-ITY dataset were publicly available on the YouTube platform at the time of the collection. As we will explain in detail in this Section, the information collected are comments published under public videos on the YouTube platform by authors themselves. For a major protection of user identities, in the released corpus only the YouTube usernames of the authors are mentioned which are not unique identifiers. The YouTube IDs of the corresponding channels, which are the real identifiers in the platform, allowing to trace the identity of the authors, are not released. Note also that the corpus was created for academic purposes and is not intended to be used for commercial deployment or applications.

    3.1 Corpus Creation

    20The fact that users often self-disclose information about themselves on social media makes it possible to adopt Distant Supervision (DS) for the acquisition of training data. DS is a semi-supervised method that has been abundantly and successfully used in affective computing and profiling to assign silver labels to data on the basis of indicative proxies (Go, Bhayani, and Huang 2009; Pool and Nissim 2016; Emmery, Chrupała, and Daelemans 2017).

    21Users left comments to some videos on the MBTI theory in which they were stating their own personality type (e.g. Sono ENTJ...chi altro? [en: "I’m ENTJ...anyone else?"]). We exploited such comments to create Personal-ITY with the following procedure.

    22First, we searched for as many Italian YouTube videos about MBTI as possible, ending up with a selection of ten with a conspicuous number of comments as the ones above3.

    23Second, we retrieved all the comments to these videos using an AJAX request, and built a list of authors and their associated MBTI label. A label was associated to a user if they included an MBTI combination in one of their comments. Table 3 shows some examples of such associations. The association process is an approximation typical of DS approaches. To assess its validity, we manually checked 300 random comments to see whether the mention of an MBTI label was indeed referred to the author’s own personality. We found that in 19 cases (6.3%) our method led to a wrong or unsure classification of the user’s personality (e.g. O tutti gli INTJ del mondo stanno commentando questo video oppure le statistiche sono sbagliate :-)). We can assume that our dataset might therefore contain about 6-7% of noisy labels.

    Table 3: Examples of automatic associations user - MBTI personality type

    Comment

    User - MBTI label

    Io sono ENFJ!!!

    User1 - ENFJ

    Ho sempre saputo di essere connessa con Lady Gaga! ISFP!

    User2 - ISFP

    24Using the acquired list of authors, we meant to obtain as many comments as possible written by them. The YouTube API, however, does not allow to retrieve all comments by one user on the platform. In order to get around this problem we relied on video similarities, and tried to expand as much as possible our video collection. Therefore, as a third step, we retrieved the list of channels that feature our initial 10 videos, and then all of the videos within those channels.

    25Fourth, through a second AJAX request, we downloaded all comments appearing below all videos retrieved through the previous step.

    26Lastly, we filtered all comments retaining those written by authors included in our original list. This does not obviously cover all comments by a relevant user, but it provided us with additional data per author.

    3.2 Final Corpus Statistics

    27For the final dataset, we decided to keep only the authors with a sufficient amount of data. More specifically, we retained only users with at least five comments, each at least five token long.

    28Personal-ITY includes 96,815 comments by 1048 users, each annotated with an MBTI label. The average number of comments per user is 92 and each message has on average 115 tokens.

    29The amount of the 16 personality types in the corpus is not uniform. Figure 1 shows such distribution and also compares it with the one in TwiSty. The unbalanced distribution can be due to personality types not being uniformly distributed in the population, and to the fact that different personality types can make different choices about their online presence. for example, observed that there is a significant correlation between online–offline choices and the MBTI dimension of Extravert-Introvert: extroverts are more likely to opt for offline modes of communication, while online communication is presumably easier for introverts. In Figure 1, we also see that the four most frequent types are introverts in both datasets. The conclusion is that, despite the different biases, collecting linguistic data in this way has the advantage that it reflects actual language use and allows large-scale analysis (Plank and Hovy 2015).

    Figure 1: Distribution of the 16 personality types in the YouTube corpus and in the Italian section of TwiSty

    Image 100000000000034500000213E9669AB84EBD5981.jpg

    30Figure 2 shows more in detail, trait by trait, the distribution of the opposite poles through the users in Personal-ITY and in TwiSty. As we might have expected, in line with what is observed in Figure 1, the two datasets present very similar trends. Such similarities between Personal-ITY and TwiSty are these similarities are a further confirmation of the reliability of the data we collected.

    Figure 2: Comparison of the distributions of the four MBTI traits between Personal-ITY and the Italian part of TWISTY

    Image 10000000000001AC000004BBED5AD6EE13873D8E.jpg

    4. Preliminary Experiments

    31We ran a series of preliminary experiments on Personali-ITY which can also serve as a baseline for future work on this dataset. We pre-processed texts by replacing hashtags, urls, usernames and emojis with four corresponding placeholders. We adopted the sklearn (Pedregosa et al. 2011) implementation of a linear SVM (LinearSVM), with standard parameters. We tested three types of features. At the lexical level, we experimented with word (1-2) and character (3-4) n-grams, both as raw counts as well as tf-idf weighted. Character n-grams were tested also with a word-boundary option. At a more stylistically level, we considered the use of emojis, hashtags, pronouns, punctuation and capitalisation. Lastly, we also experimented with embeddings-based representations, by using, on the one hand, YouTube-specific (Nieuwenhuis and Nissim 2019) pre-trained models, on the other hand, more generic embeddings, such as the Italian version of GloVe (Pennington, Socher, and Manning 2014), which is trained on the Italian Wikipedia4. We looked for all the available embeddings of the words written by each author, and used the average as feature. If a word appeared more than once in the string of comments, we considered it multiple times in the final average.

    32We used 10-fold cross-validation, and assessed the models using macro f-score. Note that the original TwiSty paper uses micro f-score. Thus, for the sake of comparison, we include also micro-F in Table 5 for the MAJ baseline and our lexical n-gram model. Table 4 shows the results of our experiments with different feature types.5 Overall, lexical features (n-grams) perform best. Combining different feature types did not lead to any improvement. Classification was performed with four separate binary classifiers (one per dimension), and with one single classifier predicting four classes, i.e, the whole MBTI labels at once. In the latter case, we observe that the results are quite high considering the increased difficulty of the task. Table 5 reports the scores of our models on TwiSty. As for Personal-ITY, best results were achieved using lexical features (tf-idf n-grams); stylistic features and embeddings are just above the baseline. Our model outperforms the one in (Verhoeven, Daelemans, and Plank 2016) for all traits (micro-F).

    Table 4: Results of the experiments on Personal-ITY. FL: prediction of the full MBTI label at once, with a character n-gram model

    Trait

    MAJ

    Lex

    Sty

    Emb

    FL

    EI

    40.55

    51.85

    40.46

    40.55

    51.65

    NS

    44.34

    51.92

    44.34

    44.34

    49.04

    FT

    35.01

    50.67

    36.27

    35.01

    50.86

    PJ

    29.49

    50.53

    51.04

    47.06

    51.03

    Avg

    37.35

    51.24

    43.03

    41.74

    50.65

    33To test compatibility of resources and to assess model portability, we also ran cross-domain experiments on Personal-ITY and TwiSty. In the first setting, we tested the effect of merging the two datasets on the performance of models for personality detection, maintaining the 10-fold cross-validation setting and by using the model performing better on average for YouTube and Twitter data (a character n-grams model). Table 6 contains the result of such experiments6. Scores are almost always lower compared to the in-domain experiments (excepts for NS as regards Twitter scores reported in Table 5: 46.15 Image 10000000000000110000000B019D36C8E5DBEB8E.jpg48.31), but quite increased compared to the majority baseline.

    Table 6: Merging Personal-ITY with TwiSty

    Trait

    MAJ

    Lex

    EI

    41.64

    50.57

    NS

    44.93

    48.31

    FT

    35.04

    51.31

    PJ

    30.66

    48.24

    Avg

    38.07

    49.61

    34In the second setting, instead, we divided both corpora in fixed training and test sets with a proportion of 80/20 and ran the models using lexical features, in order to run a cross-domain experiment. For direct comparison, we run the model in-domain again using this split. Results are shown in Table 7. Cross-domain scores are obtained with the best in-domain model.7 They drop substantially compared to in-domain, but are always above the baseline.

    Table 7: Results of the cross-domain experiments. MAJ = baseline on the cross-domain testset

    Train

    Personal-ITY

    TWISTY

    Test

    IN

    CROSS

    IN

    CROSS

    Pers

    MAJ

    TWI

    TWI

    MAJ

    Pers

    EI

    58.94

    44.94

    49.33

    55.66

    44.59

    44.59

    NS

    52.88

    47.87

    47.31

    47.87

    45.31

    45.31

    FT

    49.20

    37.58

    47.09

    65.26

    39.13

    51.04

    PJ

    54.43

    32.41

    32.50

    56.87

    36.56

    38.54

    Avg

    53.86

    40.70

    44.06

    56.42

    41.40

    44.87

    5. Conclusions

    35The experiments show that there is no single best model for personality prediction, as the feature contribution depends on the dimension considered, and on the dataset. Lexical features perform best, but they tend to be strictly related to the context in which the model is trained and so to overfit.

    36The inherent difficulty of the task itself is confirmed and deserves further investigations, as assigning a definite personality is an extremely subjective and complex task, even for humans.

    37Personal-ITY is made available to further investigate the above and other issues related to personality detection in Italian. The corpus can lend itself to a psychological analysis of the linguistic cues for the MBTI personality traits. On this line, it is interesting to investigate the presence of evidences linking linguistic features with psychological theories about the four considered dimensions (Extravert-Introvert, iNtuitive-Sensing, Feeling-Thinking, Perceiving-Judging). First results in this direction are presented in (Bassignana, Nissim, and Patti 2020).

    Bibliographie

    Des DOI sont automatiquement ajoutés aux références bibliographiques par Bilbo, l’outil d’annotation bibliographique d’OpenEdition. Ces références bibliographiques peuvent être téléchargées dans les formats APA, Chicago et MLA.

    Format

    • APA
    • Chicago
    • MLA
    Argamon, S., Koppel, M., Pennebaker, J. W., & Schler, J. (2009). Automatically profiling the author of an anonymous text. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). https://doi.org/10.1145/1461928.1461959
    Emmery, C., Chrupała, G., & Daelemans, W. (2017). Simple Queries as Distant Labels for Predicting Gender on Twitter. Presented at the Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/w17-4407
    Litvinova, T., Seredin, P., Litvinova, O., & Zagorovskaya, O. (2016). Profiling a set of personality traits of text author: what our words reveal about us. Uniwersytet Lodzki (University of Lodz). https://doi.org/10.1515/rela-2016-0019
    Parks, L., & Guay, R. P. (2009). Personality, values, and motivation. Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.002
    Pennebaker, J. W., & King, L. A. (1999). Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. American Psychological Association (APA). https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1296
    Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). (2014). Presented at the Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/d14-1
    Plank, B., & Hovy, D. (2015). Personality Traits on Twitter—or—How to Get 1,500 Personality Tests in a Week. Presented at the Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment and Social Media Analysis. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/w15-2913
    Snyder, M. (1983). The influence of individuals on situations: Implications for understanding the links between personality and social behavior. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1983.tb00342.x
    Staiano, J., Lepri, B., Aharony, N., Pianesi, F., Sebe, N., & Pentland, A. (2012). Friends don’t lie. Presented at the Ubicomp ’12: The 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing. https://doi.org/10.1145/2370216.2370266
    Vinciarelli, A., & Mohammadi, G. (2014). A Survey of Personality Computing. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). https://doi.org/10.1109/taffc.2014.2330816
    ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT. (2017). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119311263.ch4
    Whelan, S., & Davies, G. (2006). Profiling consumers of own brands and national brands using human personality. Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2006.02.004
    Argamon, Shlomo, Moshe Koppel, James W. Pennebaker, and Jonathan Schler. “Automatically Profiling the Author of an Anonymous Text”. Communications of the ACM. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), February 2009. doi:10.1145/1461928.1461959.
    Emmery, Chris, Grzegorz Chrupała, and Walter Daelemans. “Simple Queries As Distant Labels for Predicting Gender on Twitter”. Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Noisy User-Generated Text. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2017. doi:10.18653/v1/w17-4407.
    Litvinova, Tatiana, Pavel Seredin, Olga Litvinova, and Olga Zagorovskaya. “Profiling a Set of Personality Traits of Text Author: What Our Words Reveal about Us”. Research in Language. Uniwersytet Lodzki (University of Lodz), December 30, 2016. doi:10.1515/rela-2016-0019.
    Parks, Laura, and Russell P. Guay. “Personality, Values, and Motivation”. Personality and Individual Differences. Elsevier BV, November 2009. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.002.
    Pennebaker, James W., and Laura A. King. “Linguistic Styles: Language Use As an Individual Difference”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. American Psychological Association (APA), 1999. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1296.
    “Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)”. []. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2014. doi:10.3115/v1/d14-1.
    Plank, Barbara, and Dirk Hovy. “Personality Traits on Twitter—or—How to Get 1,500 Personality Tests in a Week”. Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment and Social Media Analysis. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2015. doi:10.18653/v1/w15-2913.
    Snyder, Mark. “The Influence of Individuals on Situations: Implications for Understanding the Links Between Personality and Social Behavior”. Journal of Personality. Wiley, September 1983. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1983.tb00342.x.
    Staiano, Jacopo, Bruno Lepri, Nadav Aharony, Fabio Pianesi, Nicu Sebe, and Alex Pentland. “Friends don’t Lie”. Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing. ACM, September 5, 2012. doi:10.1145/2370216.2370266.
    Vinciarelli, Alessandro, and Gelareh Mohammadi. “A Survey of Personality Computing”. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), July 1, 2014. doi:10.1109/taffc.2014.2330816.
    “ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT”. Handbook of Personality Assessment, Second Edition. Wiley, January 17, 2017. doi:10.1002/9781119311263.ch4.
    Whelan, Susan, and Gary Davies. “Profiling Consumers of Own Brands and National Brands Using Human Personality”. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. Elsevier BV, November 2006. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2006.02.004.
    Argamon, Shlomo, et al. “Automatically Profiling the Author of an Anonymous Text”. Communications of the ACM, vols. 52, nos. 2, Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), Feb. 2009, pp. 119-23. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1145/1461928.1461959.
    Emmery, Chris, et al. “Simple Queries As Distant Labels for Predicting Gender on Twitter”. Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Noisy User-Generated Text, Association for Computational Linguistics, 2017. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/w17-4407.
    Litvinova, Tatiana, et al. “Profiling a Set of Personality Traits of Text Author: What Our Words Reveal about Us”. Research in Language, vols. 14, nos. 4, Uniwersytet Lodzki (University of Lodz), 30 Dec. 2016, pp. 409-22. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1515/rela-2016-0019.
    Parks, Laura, and Russell P. Guay. “Personality, Values, and Motivation”. Personality and Individual Differences, vols. 47, nos. 7, Elsevier BV, Nov. 2009, pp. 675-84. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.002.
    Pennebaker, James W., and Laura A. King. “Linguistic Styles: Language Use As an Individual Difference”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vols. 77, nos. 6, American Psychological Association (APA), 1999, pp. 1296-12. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1296.
    Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). [], Association for Computational Linguistics, 2014. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/d14-1.
    Plank, Barbara, and Dirk Hovy. “Personality Traits on Twitter—or—How to Get 1,500 Personality Tests in a Week”. Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment and Social Media Analysis, Association for Computational Linguistics, 2015. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/w15-2913.
    Snyder, Mark. “The Influence of Individuals on Situations: Implications for Understanding the Links Between Personality and Social Behavior”. Journal of Personality, vols. 51, nos. 3, Wiley, Sept. 1983, pp. 497-16. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1983.tb00342.x.
    Staiano, Jacopo, et al. “Friends don’t Lie”. Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, ACM, 5 Sept. 2012. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1145/2370216.2370266.
    Vinciarelli, Alessandro, and Gelareh Mohammadi. “A Survey of Personality Computing”. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, vols. 5, nos. 3, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), 1 July 2014, pp. 273-91. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1109/taffc.2014.2330816.
    “ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT”. Handbook of Personality Assessment, Second Edition, Wiley, 17 Jan. 2017, pp. 59-74. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119311263.ch4.
    Whelan, Susan, and Gary Davies. “Profiling Consumers of Own Brands and National Brands Using Human Personality”. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, vols. 13, nos. 6, Elsevier BV, Nov. 2006, pp. 393-02. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2006.02.004.

    Cette bibliographie a été enrichie de toutes les références bibliographiques automatiquement générées par Bilbo en utilisant Crossref.

    Shlomo Argamon, Moshe Koppel, James W. Pennebaker, and Jonathan Schler. 2009. “Automatically Profiling the Author of an Anonymous Text.” Commun. ACM 52 (2): 119–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/1461928.1461959.

    10.1145/1461928.1461959 :

    Elisa Bassignana, Malvina Nissim, and Viviana Patti. 2020. “Personal-ITY: a YouTube Comments Corpus for Personality Profiling in Italian Social Media.” In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Computational Modeling of People’s Opinions, Personality, and Emotions in Social Media, (Peoples@COLING 2020), edited by Viviana Patti, Malvina Nissim, and Barbara Plank. Association for Computational Linguistics.

    Joan-Isaac Biel, and Daniel Gatica-Perez. 2013. “The Youtube Lens: Crowdsourced Personality Impressions and Audiovisual Analysis of Vlogs.” Multimedia, IEEE Transactions on 15 (1): 41–55.

    Fabio Celli, Fabio Pianesi, David Stillwell, and Michal Kosinski. 2013. “Workshop on Computational Personality Recognition: Shared Task.” In Seventh International Aaai Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.

    Chris Emmery, Grzegorz Chrupała, and Walter Daelemans. 2017. “Simple Queries as Distant Labels for Predicting Gender on Twitter.” In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Noisy User-Generated Text, 50–55. Copenhagen, Denmark: Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W17-4407.

    10.18653/v1/W17-4407 :

    Alec Go, Richa Bhayani, and Lei Huang. 2009. “Twitter Sentiment Classification Using Distant Supervision.” CS224N Project Report, Stanford 1 (12): 2009.

    Oliver P. John, and Sanjay Srivastava. 1999. “The Big Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Theoretical Perspectives.” In Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, edited by L. A. Pervin and O. P. John, 102–38. Guilford Press.

    Tatiana Litvinova, P. Seredin, Olga Litvinova, and Olga Zagorovskaya. 2016. “Profiling a Set of Personality Traits of Text Author: What Our Words Reveal About Us.” Research in Language 14 (December). https://doi.org/10.1515/rela-2016-0019.

    10.1515/rela-2016-0019 :

    Yash Mehta, Navonil Majumder, Alexander Gelbukh, and Erik Cambria. 2019. “Recent Trends in Deep Learning Based Personality Detection.” Artificial Intelligence Review, 1–27.

    I. B. Myers, and P. B. Myers. 1995. Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type. Mobius. https://books.google.it/books?id=D3V-AAAAMAAJ.

    Moniek Nieuwenhuis, and Malvina Nissim. 2019. “The Contribution of Embeddings to Sentiment Analysis on YouTube.” In Proceedings of the Sixth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics, Bari, Italy, November 13-15, 2019. Vol. 2481. CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR-WS.org.

    Francisco M. Rangel Pardo, Fabio Celli, Paolo Rosso, Martin Potthast, Benno Stein, and Walter Daelemans. 2015. “Overview of the 3rd Author Profiling Task at PAN 2015.” In Working Notes of CLEF 2015 - Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum, Toulouse, France, September 8-11, 2015. Vol. 1391. CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR-WS.org.

    Laura Parks, and Russell P Guay. 2009. “Personality, Values, and Motivation.” Personality and Individual Differences 47 (7): 675–84.

    10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.002 :

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, et al. 2011. “Scikit-Learn: Machine Learning in Python.” Journal of Machine Learning Research 12: 2825–30.

    James Pennebaker, and Laura King. 2000. “Linguistic Styles: Language Use as an Individual Difference.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 (January): 1296–1312. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.77.6.1296.

    10.1037//0022-3514.77.6.1296 :

    Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D. Manning. 2014. “GloVe: Global Vectors for Word Representation.” In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (Emnlp), 1532–43. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D14-1162.

    10.3115/v1/D14-1 :

    Barbara Plank, and Dirk Hovy. 2015. “Personality Traits on Twitter—or—How to Get 1,500 Personality Tests in a Week.” In Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment and Social Media Analysis, 92–98. Lisboa, Portugal: Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W15-2913.

    10.18653/v1/W15-2913 :

    Chris Pool, and Malvina Nissim. 2016. “Distant Supervision for Emotion Detection Using Facebook Reactions.” In Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Modeling of People’s Opinions, Personality, and Emotions in Social Media (PEOPLES), 30–39. Osaka, Japan: The COLING 2016 Organizing Committee. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W16-4304.

    H. Andrew Schwartz, Johannes C. Eichstaedt, Margaret L. Kern, Lukasz Dziurzynski, Stephanie M. Ramones, Megha Agrawal, Achal Shah, et al. 2013. “Personality, Gender, and Age in the Language of Social Media: The Open-Vocabulary Approach.” PloS One 8 (9): e73791.

    Mark Snyder. 1983. “The Influence of Individuals on Situations: Implications for Understanding the Links Between Personality and Social Behavior.” Journal of Personality 51 (3): 497–516.

    10.1111/j.1467-6494.1983.tb00342.x :

    Jacopo Staiano, Bruno Lepri, Nadav Aharony, Fabio Pianesi, Nicu Sebe, and Alex Pentland. 2012. “Friends Don’t Lie - Inferring Personality Traits from Social Network Structure.” In UbiComp’12 - Proceedings of the 2012 Acm Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, 321–30. https://doi.org/10.1145/2370216.2370266.

    10.1145/2370216.2370266 :

    Ben Verhoeven, Walter Daelemans, and Barbara Plank. 2016. “TwiSty: A Multilingual Twitter Stylometry Corpus for Gender and Personality Profiling.” In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’16), 1632–7. Portorož, Slovenia: European Language Resources Association (ELRA). https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/L16-1258.

    Alessandro Vinciarelli, and Gelareh Mohammadi. 2014. “A Survey of Personality Computing.” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 5 (3): 273–91.

    10.1109/TAFFC.2014.2330816 :

    Irving B. Weiner, and Roger L. Greene. 2017. “Ethical Considerations in Personality Assessment.” In Handbook of Personality Assessment, Second Edition, 59–74. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119311263.ch4.

    10.1002/9781119311263.ch4 :

    Susan Whelan, and Gary Davies. 2006. “Profiling Consumers of Own Brands and National Brands Using Human Personality.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (6): 393–402.

    10.1016/j.jretconser.2006.02.004 :

    Wu Youyou, Michal Kosinski, and David Stillwell. 2015. “Computer-Based Personality Judgments Are More Accurate Than Those Made by Humans.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (4): 1036–40.

    Notes de bas de page

    1 https://github.com/elisabassignana/Personal-ITY

    2 http://mypersonality.org

    3 Links to the 10 YouTube videos:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCo9RlDRpz0
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4kC8iqUNyk
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8S8PgW8t2U
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHZOG8k7nSw
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO2z3_DINqs
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaKPl_y1JXg
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l4o4VBXlGY
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GK5J6PLj218
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P95dkVLmps
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0ZIFNgUmoE

    4 https://hlt.isti.cnr.it/wordembeddings

    5 In Tables 4–5, we report the highest scores based on averages of the four traits. Considering the dimensions individually, better results can be obtained by using specific models.

    6 Prediction of the full label at once.

    7 Better results can be obtained with other specific models.

    Auteurs

    • Elisa Bassignana

      Dipartimento di Informatica - University of Turin - elisa.bassignana@edu.unito.it

    • Malvina Nissim

      CLCG - University of Groningen – m.nissim@rug.nl

    • Viviana Patti

      Dipartimento di Informatica - University of Turin – viviana.patti@unito.it

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

    Voir plus de livres
    Proceedings of the Second Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2015

    Proceedings of the Second Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2015

    3-4 December 2015, Trento

    Cristina Bosco, Sara Tonelli et Fabio Massimo Zanzotto (dir.)

    2015

    Proceedings of the Third Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2016

    Proceedings of the Third Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2016

    5-6 December 2016, Napoli

    Anna Corazza, Simonetta Montemagni et Giovanni Semeraro (dir.)

    2016

    EVALITA. Evaluation of NLP and Speech Tools for Italian

    EVALITA. Evaluation of NLP and Speech Tools for Italian

    Proceedings of the Final Workshop 7 December 2016, Naples

    Pierpaolo Basile, Franco Cutugno, Malvina Nissim et al. (dir.)

    2016

    Proceedings of the Fourth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2017

    Proceedings of the Fourth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2017

    11-12 December 2017, Rome

    Roberto Basili, Malvina Nissim et Giorgio Satta (dir.)

    2017

    Proceedings of the Fifth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2018

    Proceedings of the Fifth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2018

    10-12 December 2018, Torino

    Elena Cabrio, Alessandro Mazzei et Fabio Tamburini (dir.)

    2018

    EVALITA Evaluation of NLP and Speech Tools for Italian

    EVALITA Evaluation of NLP and Speech Tools for Italian

    Proceedings of the Final Workshop 12-13 December 2018, Naples

    Tommaso Caselli, Nicole Novielli, Viviana Patti et al. (dir.)

    2018

    EVALITA Evaluation of NLP and Speech Tools for Italian - December 17th, 2020

    EVALITA Evaluation of NLP and Speech Tools for Italian - December 17th, 2020

    Proceedings of the Seventh Evaluation Campaign of Natural Language Processing and Speech Tools for Italian Final Workshop

    Valerio Basile, Danilo Croce, Maria Maro et al. (dir.)

    2020

    Proceedings of the Seventh Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2020

    Proceedings of the Seventh Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2020

    Bologna, Italy, March 1-3, 2021

    Felice Dell'Orletta, Johanna Monti et Fabio Tamburini (dir.)

    2020

    Proceedings of the Eighth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CliC-it 2021

    Proceedings of the Eighth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CliC-it 2021

    Milan, Italy, 26-28 January, 2022

    Elisabetta Fersini, Marco Passarotti et Viviana Patti (dir.)

    2022

    Voir plus de livres
    1 / 9
    Proceedings of the Second Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2015

    Proceedings of the Second Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2015

    3-4 December 2015, Trento

    Cristina Bosco, Sara Tonelli et Fabio Massimo Zanzotto (dir.)

    2015

    Proceedings of the Third Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2016

    Proceedings of the Third Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2016

    5-6 December 2016, Napoli

    Anna Corazza, Simonetta Montemagni et Giovanni Semeraro (dir.)

    2016

    EVALITA. Evaluation of NLP and Speech Tools for Italian

    EVALITA. Evaluation of NLP and Speech Tools for Italian

    Proceedings of the Final Workshop 7 December 2016, Naples

    Pierpaolo Basile, Franco Cutugno, Malvina Nissim et al. (dir.)

    2016

    Proceedings of the Fourth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2017

    Proceedings of the Fourth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2017

    11-12 December 2017, Rome

    Roberto Basili, Malvina Nissim et Giorgio Satta (dir.)

    2017

    Proceedings of the Fifth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2018

    Proceedings of the Fifth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2018

    10-12 December 2018, Torino

    Elena Cabrio, Alessandro Mazzei et Fabio Tamburini (dir.)

    2018

    EVALITA Evaluation of NLP and Speech Tools for Italian

    EVALITA Evaluation of NLP and Speech Tools for Italian

    Proceedings of the Final Workshop 12-13 December 2018, Naples

    Tommaso Caselli, Nicole Novielli, Viviana Patti et al. (dir.)

    2018

    EVALITA Evaluation of NLP and Speech Tools for Italian - December 17th, 2020

    EVALITA Evaluation of NLP and Speech Tools for Italian - December 17th, 2020

    Proceedings of the Seventh Evaluation Campaign of Natural Language Processing and Speech Tools for Italian Final Workshop

    Valerio Basile, Danilo Croce, Maria Maro et al. (dir.)

    2020

    Proceedings of the Seventh Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2020

    Proceedings of the Seventh Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2020

    Bologna, Italy, March 1-3, 2021

    Felice Dell'Orletta, Johanna Monti et Fabio Tamburini (dir.)

    2020

    Proceedings of the Eighth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CliC-it 2021

    Proceedings of the Eighth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CliC-it 2021

    Milan, Italy, 26-28 January, 2022

    Elisabetta Fersini, Marco Passarotti et Viviana Patti (dir.)

    2022

    Voir plus de chapitres

    MODAL: A multilingual corpus annotated for modality

    Malvina Nissim et Paola Pietrandrea

    Automatic extraction of Word Combinations from corpora: evaluating methods and benchmarks

    Malvina Nissim, Sara Castagnoli, Francesca Masini et al.

    Hurtlex: A Multilingual Lexicon of Words to Hurt

    Elisa Bassignana, Valerio Basile et Viviana Patti

    Evalita 2018: Overview on the 6th Evaluation Campaign of Natural Language Processing and Speech Tools for Italian

    Tommaso Caselli, Viviana Patti, Nicole Novielli et al.

    Overview of the EVALITA 2018 Cross-Genre Gender Prediction (GxG) Task

    Felice Dell’Orletta et Malvina Nissim

    Raising Interest and Collecting Suggestions on the EVALITA Evaluation Campaign

    Rachele Sprugnoli, Viviana Patti et Franco Cutugno

    When silver glitters more than gold: Bootstrapping an Italian part-of-speech tagger for Twitter

    Barbara Plank et Malvina Nissim

    Tracing metaphors in time through self-distance in vector spaces

    Marco Del Tredici, Malvina Nissim et Andrea Zaninello

    Preface

    Roberto Basili, Malvina Nissim et Giorgio Satta

    Datasets and Models for Authorship Attribution on Italian Personal Writings

    Gaetana Ruggiero, Albert Gatt et Malvina Nissim

    Analyzing and annotating for sentiment analysis the socio-political debate on #labuonascuola

    Marco Stranisci, Cristina Bosco, Viviana Patti et al.

    Deep Tweets: from Entity Linking to Sentiment Analysis

    Pierpaolo Basile, Valerio Basile, Malvina Nissim et al.

    Voir plus de chapitres
    1 / 12

    MODAL: A multilingual corpus annotated for modality

    Malvina Nissim et Paola Pietrandrea

    Automatic extraction of Word Combinations from corpora: evaluating methods and benchmarks

    Malvina Nissim, Sara Castagnoli, Francesca Masini et al.

    Hurtlex: A Multilingual Lexicon of Words to Hurt

    Elisa Bassignana, Valerio Basile et Viviana Patti

    Evalita 2018: Overview on the 6th Evaluation Campaign of Natural Language Processing and Speech Tools for Italian

    Tommaso Caselli, Viviana Patti, Nicole Novielli et al.

    Overview of the EVALITA 2018 Cross-Genre Gender Prediction (GxG) Task

    Felice Dell’Orletta et Malvina Nissim

    Raising Interest and Collecting Suggestions on the EVALITA Evaluation Campaign

    Rachele Sprugnoli, Viviana Patti et Franco Cutugno

    When silver glitters more than gold: Bootstrapping an Italian part-of-speech tagger for Twitter

    Barbara Plank et Malvina Nissim

    Tracing metaphors in time through self-distance in vector spaces

    Marco Del Tredici, Malvina Nissim et Andrea Zaninello

    Preface

    Roberto Basili, Malvina Nissim et Giorgio Satta

    Datasets and Models for Authorship Attribution on Italian Personal Writings

    Gaetana Ruggiero, Albert Gatt et Malvina Nissim

    Analyzing and annotating for sentiment analysis the socio-political debate on #labuonascuola

    Marco Stranisci, Cristina Bosco, Viviana Patti et al.

    Deep Tweets: from Entity Linking to Sentiment Analysis

    Pierpaolo Basile, Valerio Basile, Malvina Nissim et al.

    Accès ouvert

    Accès ouvert

    ePub

    PDF

    PDF du chapitre

    1 https://github.com/elisabassignana/Personal-ITY

    2 http://mypersonality.org

    3 Links to the 10 YouTube videos:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCo9RlDRpz0
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4kC8iqUNyk
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8S8PgW8t2U
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHZOG8k7nSw
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO2z3_DINqs
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaKPl_y1JXg
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l4o4VBXlGY
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GK5J6PLj218
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P95dkVLmps
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0ZIFNgUmoE

    4 https://hlt.isti.cnr.it/wordembeddings

    5 In Tables 4–5, we report the highest scores based on averages of the four traits. Considering the dimensions individually, better results can be obtained by using specific models.

    6 Prediction of the full label at once.

    7 Better results can be obtained with other specific models.

    Proceedings of the Seventh Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2020

    X Facebook Email

    Proceedings of the Seventh Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2020

    Ce livre est cité par

    • Miaschi, Alessio. Alzetta, Chiara. Brunato, Dominique. Dell’Orletta, Felice. Venturi, Giulia. (2023) Testing the Effectiveness of the Diagnostic Probing Paradigm on Italian Treebanks. Information, 14. DOI: 10.3390/info14030144
    • Miaschi, Alessio. Sarti, Gabriele. Brunato, Dominique. Dell’Orletta, Felice. Venturi, Giulia. (2022) Probing Linguistic Knowledge in Italian Neural Language Models across Language Varieties. Italian Journal of Computational Linguistics, 8. DOI: 10.4000/ijcol.965
    • Saga, Satoshi. Shirakawa, Kanta. (2025) Investigating the Effect of Pseudo-Haptics on Perceptions Toward Onomatopoeia Text During Finger-Point Tracing. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 9. DOI: 10.3390/mti9100100
    • (2025) Book reviews. Yearbook of Phraseology, 16. DOI: 10.1515/phras-2025-0012

    Ce chapitre est cité par

    • Biswas, Shreya. Bhat, Swati. Jaiswal, Garima. Sharma, Arun. (2022) Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Machine Learning, Advances in Computing, Renewable Energy and Communication. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-19-2828-4_63
    • Maharani, Warih. Gani, Prati Hutari. (2025) Digital footprints and personality prediction: integrating methodological innovations and ethical considerations in social media analysis. Neural Computing and Applications, 37. DOI: 10.1007/s00521-025-11607-6
    • Malik, Bhavey. Swaminathan, Varun. Sharma, Aditya. Jain, Rachna. Nagrath, Preeti. Singh, Ashish Kumar. (2022) Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering Futuristic Trends in Networks and Computing Technologies. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-19-5037-7_62
    • Bassignana, Elisa. Nissim, Malvina. Patti, Viviana. (2020) Proceedings of the Seventh Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2020. DOI: 10.4000/books.aaccademia.8258

    Proceedings of the Seventh Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2020

    Vous pouvez vous connecter à votre bibliothèque à l’adresse suivante : https://freemium.openedition.org/oebooks

    Suggérer l’acquisition à votre bibliothèque

    Si vous avez des questions, vous pouvez nous écrire à access[at]openedition.org

    Proceedings of the Seventh Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2020

    Vérifiez si votre bibliothèque a déjà acquis ce livre : authentifiez-vous à OpenEdition Freemium for Books.

    Vous pouvez suggérer à votre bibliothèque d’acquérir un ou plusieurs livres publiés sur OpenEdition Books. N’hésitez pas à lui indiquer nos coordonnées : access[at]openedition.org

    Vous pouvez également nous indiquer, à l’aide du formulaire suivant, les coordonnées de votre bibliothèque afin que nous la contactions pour lui suggérer l’achat de ce livre. Les champs suivis de (*) sont obligatoires.

    Veuillez, s’il vous plaît, remplir tous les champs.

    La syntaxe de l’email est incorrecte.

    Référence numérique du chapitre

    Format

    Bassignana, E., Nissim, M., & Patti, V. (2020). Personal-ITY: A Novel YouTube-based Corpus for Personality Prediction in Italian. In F. Dell’Orletta, J. Monti, & F. Tamburini (éds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2020. Torino: Accademia University Press. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.aaccademia.8258
    Bassignana, Elisa, Malvina Nissim, et Viviana Patti. « Personal-ITY: A Novel YouTube-Based Corpus for Personality Prediction in Italian ». In Proceedings of the Seventh Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-It 2020, édité par Felice Dell’Orletta, Johanna Monti, et Fabio Tamburini. Torino: Accademia University Press, 2020. doi:10.4000/books.aaccademia.8258.
    Bassignana, Elisa, et al. « Personal-ITY: A Novel YouTube-Based Corpus for Personality Prediction in Italian ». Proceedings of the Seventh Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-It 2020, édité par Felice Dell’Orletta et al., Accademia University Press, 2020, https://doi.org/10.4000/books.aaccademia.8258.

    Référence numérique du livre

    Format

    Dell’Orletta, F., Monti, J., & Tamburini, F. (éds.). (2020). Proceedings of the Seventh Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2020. Torino: Accademia University Press. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.aaccademia.8203
    Dell’Orletta, Felice, Johanna Monti, et Fabio Tamburini, éd. Proceedings of the Seventh Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-It 2020. Torino: Accademia University Press, 2020. doi:10.4000/books.aaccademia.8203.
    Dell’Orletta, Felice, et al., éditeurs. Proceedings of the Seventh Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-It 2020. Accademia University Press, 2020, https://doi.org/10.4000/books.aaccademia.8203.
    Compatible avec Zotero Zotero

    1 / 3

    Accademia University Press

    Accademia University Press

    • Plan du site
    • Se connecter

    Suivez-nous

    • Facebook
    • Flux RSS

    URL : http://www.aaccademia.it/

    Email : info@aaccademia.it

    Adresse :

    Accademia University Press

    Via Carlo Alberto 55

    I‐10123

    Torino

    Italia

    OpenEdition
    • Candidater à OpenEdition Books
    • Connaître le programme OpenEdition Freemium
    • Commander des livres
    • S’abonner à la lettre d’OpenEdition
    • CGU d’OpenEdition Books
    • Accessibilité : partiellement conforme
    • Données personnelles
    • Gestion des cookies
    • Système de signalement