In this case, the Twitter profiles of the authors are available, but these consist of freeform text rather than fixed information fields.And, obviously, it is unknown to which degree the information that is present is true.
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.
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.
Another system that predicts the gender for Dutch Twitter users is Tweet Genie ( that one can provide with a Twitter user name, after which the gender and age are estimated, based on the user s last 200 tweets.
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).
2009) managed to increase the gender recognition quality to 89.2%, using sentence length, 35 non-dictionary words, and 52 slang words.
The authors do not report the set of slang words, but the non-dictionary words appear to be more related to style than to content, showing that purely linguistic behaviour can contribute information for gender recognition as well.
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.