Detecting Objectifying Language in Online Professor Reviews

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.08540v1
• Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 17:49:59 GMT
• Title: Detecting Objectifying Language in Online Professor Reviews
• Authors: Angie Waller and Kyle Gorman
• Abstract summary: We describe two supervised text classifiers for detecting objectifying commentary in professor reviews. We ensemble these classifiers and use the resulting model to track objectifying commentary at scale. We measure correlations between objectifying commentary, changes to the review website interface, and teacher gender across a ten-year period.
• Score: 4.05998151967271
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Student reviews often make reference to professors' physical appearances. Until recently RateMyProfessors.com, the website of this study's focus, used a design feature to encourage a "hot or not" rating of college professors. In the wake of recent #MeToo and #TimesUp movements, social awareness of the inappropriateness of these reviews has grown; however, objectifying comments remain and continue to be posted in this online context. We describe two supervised text classifiers for detecting objectifying commentary in professor reviews. We then ensemble these classifiers and use the resulting model to track objectifying commentary at scale. We measure correlations between objectifying commentary, changes to the review website interface, and teacher gender across a ten-year period.

Related papers

• ViCo: Engaging Video Comment Generation with Human Preference Rewards [68.50351391812723]
  We propose ViCo with three novel designs to tackle the challenges for generating engaging Video Comments. To quantify the engagement of comments, we utilize the number of "likes" each comment receives as a proxy of human preference. To automatically evaluate the engagement of comments, we train a reward model to align its judgment to the above proxy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-22T04:01:01Z)
• Summative Student Course Review Tool Based on Machine Learning Sentiment Analysis to Enhance Life Science Feedback Efficacy [4.518390136757588]
  We show a novel approach to summarizing and organizing students' opinions via analyzing their sentiment towards a course as a function of the language/vocabulary used. This analysis is derived from their responses to a general comment section encountered at the end of post-course review surveys.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-15T19:56:56Z)
• Placing M-Phasis on the Plurality of Hate: A Feature-Based Corpus of Hate Online [18.973398187389083]
  We present the M-Phasis corpus, a corpus of 9k German and French user comments collected from migration-related news articles. It goes beyond the "hate"-"neutral" dichotomy and is instead annotated with 23 features, which in combination become descriptors of various types of speech.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-28T10:36:49Z)
• Reviews in motion: a large scale, longitudinal study of review recommendations on Yelp [24.34131115451651]
  We focus on "reclassification," wherein a platform changes its filtering decision for a review. We compile over 12.5M reviews--more than 2M unique--across over 10k businesses. Our data suggests demographic disparities in reclassifications, with more changes in lower density and low-middle income areas.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-18T03:27:53Z)
• SIFN: A Sentiment-aware Interactive Fusion Network for Review-based Item Recommendation [48.1799451277808]
  We propose a Sentiment-aware Interactive Fusion Network (SIFN) for review-based item recommendation. We first encode user/item reviews via BERT and propose a light-weighted sentiment learner to extract semantic features of each review. Then, we propose a sentiment prediction task that guides the sentiment learner to extract sentiment-aware features via explicit sentiment labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-18T08:04:38Z)
• Are Top School Students More Critical of Their Professors? Mining Comments on RateMyProfessor.com [83.2634062100579]
  Student reviews and comments on RateMyProfessor.com reflect realistic learning experiences of students. Our study proves that student reviews and comments contain crucial information and can serve as essential references for enrollment in courses and universities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-23T20:01:36Z)
• Abstractive Opinion Tagging [65.47649273721679]
  In e-commerce, opinion tags refer to a ranked list of tags provided by the e-commerce platform that reflect characteristics of reviews of an item. Current mechanisms for generating opinion tags rely on either manual or labelling methods, which is time-consuming and ineffective. We propose an abstractive opinion tagging framework, named AOT-Net, to generate a ranked list of opinion tags given a large number of reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-18T05:08:15Z)
• Fake Reviews Detection through Analysis of Linguistic Features [1.609940380983903]
  This paper explores a natural language processing approach to identify fake reviews. We study 15 linguistic features for distinguishing fake and trustworthy online reviews. We were able to discriminate fake from real reviews with high accuracy using these linguistic features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-08T21:16:30Z)
• A Unified Dual-view Model for Review Summarization and Sentiment Classification with Inconsistency Loss [51.448615489097236]
  Acquiring accurate summarization and sentiment from user reviews is an essential component of modern e-commerce platforms. We propose a novel dual-view model that jointly improves the performance of these two tasks. Experiment results on four real-world datasets from different domains demonstrate the effectiveness of our model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-02T13:34:11Z)
• Code Review in the Classroom [57.300604527924015]
  Young developers in a classroom setting provide a clear picture of the potential favourable and problematic areas of the code review process. Their feedback suggests that the process has been well received with some points to better the process. This paper can be used as guidelines to perform code reviews in the classroom.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-19T06:07:45Z)
• Leveraging Peer Feedback to Improve Visualization Education [4.679788938455095]
  We discuss the construction and application of peer review in a computer science visualization course. We evaluate student projects, peer review text, and a post-course questionnaire from 3 semesters of mixed undergraduate and graduate courses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-12T21:46:58Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.