Prime Slots Play Now! 10 free spins - No Deposit 100% bonus and 100 free spins Read more
Royal Panda Play Now! 10 free spins - No deposit 100% bonus up to £200 Read more
ComeOn Play Now! 10 free spins - No deposit 100% bonus up to £200 Read more
LeoVegas Play Now! 50 free spins - No deposit 200% bonus and 200 free spins Read more
Cashmio Play Now! 20 free spins - No deposit 200 free spins on 1st deposit Read more
Winner Play Now! 99 free spins - No deposit 200% bonus up to £300 Read more

🎰 Mac start niet - Volg de tips op de site van Mac Support

australia-icon

Om je iPhone te beveiligen tegen misbruik kan je naast een pincode. De toegangscode die je kan ingeven bestaat standaard uit 4 cijfers, door. Handig dat code slot en de mogelijkheid om alle gegevens na tien keer fout invoeren te wissen... iOS 13: Levensduur van iPhone batterij verlengen dankzij�...
Als u een macbook heeft ga dan na of de batterij voldoende opgeladen is en kijk. Mac op; Houd de 4 toetsen ingedrukt totdat u het opstart geluid (Chime) voor�...
Naast de specifieke Apple producten kunt u ook bij ons terecht voor kwalitatief. Naast de nieuwe Apple computers kunnen we ook gebruikte of. certificaat worden gekenmerkt door een slotje (standaard certificaat) naast het website adres in de browser. lees meer. OWC Express 4M2 4-Slot M.2 NVMe SSD Enclosure.

iPhone 4 batterij vervangen - FixjeiPhone.nl

In 2016 toegelaten aan de Schrijversvakschool Amsterdam. Kruitbosch heeft haar eigen column in de krant. Naast roken, drinken en verwonderen is er maar�...
For tailoring we rely on existing approaches (e.g. prediction modelling) but will also develop new techniques for risk profiling, classifying and stratifying patients�...
Buddha To Buddha Slotje; Blackjack Counter App! Slotje ipad rechtsboven!. kleine tekentje rechtsboven naast de batterij aanduiding, het kleine slotje.. slotje bovenin naast blu Images for slotje boven in scherm iphone er�...
CASINO NAME FREE BONUS DEPOSIT BONUS RATING GET BONUS
royal panda
Royal Panda - 100% bonus up to $100 PLAY
skycasino
BetSpin - $200 bonus + 100 free spins welcome package PLAY
mrgreen
MrGreen - €350 + 100 free spins welcome package PLAY
kaboo
Kaboo 5 free spins $200 bonus + 100 free spins welcome package PLAY
GDay Casino
GDay Casino 50 free spins 100% unlimited first deposit bonus PLAY
leovegas
LeoVegas 20 free spins no deposit 200% bonus up to $100 + 200 free spins PLAY
casinoroom
CasinoRoom 20 free spins no deposit 100% bonus up to $500 + 180 free spins PLAY
karamba
Karamba - $100 bonus + 100 free spins welcome package PLAY
casumo
Casumo - 200% bonus + 180 free spins PLAY
spinson
Spinson 10 free spins no deposit Up to 999 free spins PLAY
PrimeSlots
PrimeSlots 10 free spins 100% bonus up to $100 + 100 free spins PLAY
guts
Guts - $400 bonus + 100 free spins welcome package PLAY
thrills
Thrills - 200% bonus up to $100 + 20 super spins PLAY

februari | 2015 | Internet archief – plus | Pagina 2 Iphone 4 slotje naast batterij

pokie-1

Dit verschil is pas echt te zien als beide types naast elkaar liggen. Voordeel van het full HD-scherm is dat de accu langer mee zou moeten�...
Aantal cores, 4 - Quadcore. In het doosje vinden we naast het toestel en de headset nog een USB... zoals de Galaxy S7 of iPhone 6S, maar of het beter is dan verschillende van zijn voorgangers, dat is lastig aan te duiden.... dat Pokemon GO nu beter te spelen was, zowel qua batterij als qua warmte.
22:16 Heb jij ook het idee dat de batterij van je telefoon opeens sneller leeg is?... 23:44 Naast kunstmatige mannen- en vrouwenstemmen heeft een bedrijf uit Denemarken nu ook... iOS 12 nu al getest en hoe veilig is zo'n slotje in je browser?.... NOS op 3 Tech Podcast: Een batterij die eeuwig meegaat en Uncharted 4.

starburst-pokieapple4you Iphone 4 slotje naast batterij

Podcast Luisteren (PodNL): NOS op 3 Tech Podcast Iphone 4 slotje naast batterij

Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal 4 (2014) 171-190. Submitted.... naast effe begin niets p. 20 bedoel verveel hw rond dikke wrm naam denkt hey. iphone q ak vriendin last koffie nice avondje ow zielig lach echte gegaan.. batterij gebruik vanuit twitteren helpt nek betekent logeren gespeeld back mist.
Going to school for social media marketing. 1shopmobile twitter.. Baby simulator dolls for sale cheap uk. Golflengte. Iphone 6 slotje naast batterij. Houston we�...
Naast uitgebreide lineaire kijkmogelijkheden is het online Smart TV-platform.... vol of leeg de accu is, maar hoe weet je nu hoe vol jouw innerlijke batterij is?.... U door de website post ik verslaafd tot slot nemen achter het..... Ik heb het geprobeerd met iemand die een iPhone 4 heeft, maar dat werkt niet�...

Iphone 4 slotje naast batterijcasinobonus

iphone 4 slotje naast batterij oz, R.
Bootk 2007 , The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2007, Software Manual.
R Development Core Team 2008 , R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Gupta 2010 , Classifying latent user attributes in Twitter, Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on Search and mining user-generated contents, pp.
Pennebaker 2006 , Effects of age and gender on blogging, Proceedings of 2006 AAAI Spring Symposium on Computational Approaches for Analyzing Weblogs.
Tjong Kim Sang, Erik and Antal van den Bosch 2013 , Dealing with big data: the case of Twitter, Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal 3, pp.
Van Bael, Christophe and Hans van Halteren 2007 , Speaker classification by means of orthographic and broad phonetic transcriptions of speech, Speaker Classification 2 , pp.{/INSERTKEYS} {INSERTKEYS}We experimented with several authorship profiling techniques and various recognition features, using Tweet text only, in order to determine how well they could distinguish between male and female authors of Tweets.
We achieved the best results, 95.
Two other machine learning systems, Linguistic Profiling and TiMBL, 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 TwiNL 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.
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.
The resource would become even more useful if we could deduce complete and correct metadata from the various available information sources, such as the provided metadata, user relations, profile photos, and the text of the tweets.
In this paper, we start modestly, by attempting to derive just the gender of the authors1 automatically, purely on the basis of the content of their tweets, using author profiling techniques.
For our experiment, we selected 600 authors for whom we were able to determine with a high degree of certainty a that they were human individuals and b what gender they were.
We then experimented with several author profiling techniques, namely Support Vector Regression as provided by LIBSVM; Chang and Lin 2011 , Linguistic Profiling LP; van Halteren 2004 , and TiMBL Daelemans et al.
We also varied the recognition features provided to the techniques, using both character and token n-grams.
For all techniques and features, we ran the same 5-fold cross-validation experiments in order to determine how well they could be used to distinguish between male and female authors of tweets.
In the following sections, we first present some previous work on gender recognition Section 2.
Then we describe our experimental data and the evaluation method Section 3 , after which we proceed to describe the various author profiling strategies that we investigated Section 4.
Then follow the results Section 5 , and Section 6 concludes the paper.
For whom we already know that they are an individual person rather than, say, a husband and wife couple or a board of editors for an official Twitterfeed.
Gender Recognition Gender recognition is a subtask in the general field of authorship recognition and profiling, which has reached maturity in the last decades for an overview, see e.
Juola 2008 and Koppel et al.
Currently the field is getting an impulse for further development now that vast data sets of user generated data is becoming available.
Even so, there are circumstances where outright recognition is not an option, but where one must be content with profiling, i.
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.
In Koppel et al.
Later, in 2004, the group collected a Blog Authorship Corpus BAC; Schler et al.
This corpus has been used extensively since.
The creators themselves used it for various classification tasks, including gender recognition Koppel et al.
They report an overall accuracy of 76.
Slightly more information seems to be coming from content 75.
However, even style appears to mirror content.
We see the women focusing on personal matters, leading to important content words like love and boyfriend, and important style words like I and other personal pronouns.
The men, on the other hand, seem to be more interested in computers, leading to important content words like software and game, and correspondingly more determiners and prepositions.
One gets the impression that gender recognition is more sociological than linguistic, showing what women and men were blogging about back in 2004.
A later study Goswami et al.
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.
Gender recognition has also already been applied to Tweets.
With lexical N-grams, they reached an accuracy of 67.
Their highest score when using just text features was 75.
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.
With only token unigrams, the recognition accuracy was 80.
They used lexical features, and present a very good breakdown of various word types.
When using all user tweets, they reached an accuracy of 88.
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.
Among other things, it shows gender and age statistics for the users producing the tweets found for user specified searches.
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.
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.
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.
The conclusion is not so much, however, that humans are also not perfect at guessing age on the basis of language use, but rather that there is a distinction between the biological and the social identity of authors, and language use is more likely to represent the social one cf.
Although we agree with Nguyen et al.
Experimental Data and Evaluation In this section, we first describe the corpus that we used in our experiments Section 3.
Then we outline how we evaluated the various strategies Section 3.
The collection is estimated to contain 30-40% of all public Dutch tweets.
From this material, we considered all tweets with a date stamp in 2011 and 2012.
In all, there were about 23 million users present.
Of these, we only considered the ones who produced 2 to 10 tweets on average per day over 2011 and 2012.
This restriction brought the number of users down to about 270,000.
We then progressed to the selection of individual users.
We aimed for 600 users.
We selected 500 of these so that they get a gender assignment in TwiQS, for comparison, but we also wanted to include unmarked users in case these would be different in nature.
All users, obviously, should be individuals, and for each the gender should be clear.
From the about 120,000 users who are assigned a gender by TwiQS, we took a random selection in such a manner that the volume distribution i.
We checked gender manually for all selected users, mostly on the basis 3.
As in our own experiment, this measurement is based on Twitter accounts where the user is known to be a human individual.
However, as research shows a higher number of female users in all as well Heil and Piskorski 2009 , we do not view this as a problem.
Then, as several of our features were based on tokens, we tokenized all text samples, using our own specialized tokenizer for tweets.
Apart from normal tokens like words, numbers and dates, it is also able to recognize a wide variety of emoticons.
The tokenizer is able to identify hashtags and Twitter user names to the extent that these conform to the conventions used in Twitter, i.
URLs and email addresses are not completely covered.
The tokenizer counts on clear markers for these, e.
Assuming that any sequence including periods is likely to be a URL proves unwise, given that spacing between normal words is often irregular.
And actually checking the existence of a proposed URL was computationally infeasible for the amount of text we intended to process.
Finally, as the use of capitalization and diacritics is quite haphazard in the tweets, the tokenizer strips all words of diacritics and transforms them to lower case.
For those techniques where hyperparameters need to be selected, we used a leave-one-out strategy on the test material.
For each test author, we determined the optimal hyperparameter settings with regard to the classification of all other authors in the same part of the corpus, in effect using these as development material.
In this way, we derived a classification score for each author without the system having any direct or indirect access to the actual gender of the author.
We then measured for which percentage of the authors in the corpus this score was in agreement with the actual gender.
These percentages are presented below in Section 5.
Profiling Strategies In this section, we describe the strategies that we investigated for the gender recognition task.
As we approached the task from a machine learning viewpoint, we needed to select text features to be provided as input to the machine learning systems, as well as machine learning systems which are to use this input for classification.
We first describe the features we used Section 4.
Then we explain how we used the three selected machine learning systems to classify the authors Section 4.
The use of syntax or even higher level features is for now impossible as the language use on Twitter deviates too much from standard Dutch, and we have no tools to provide reliable analyses.
However, even with purely lexical features, 4.
On the examined users, the gender assignment of TwiQS proved about 87% correct.
Several errors could be traced back to the fact that the account had moved on to another user since 2012.
We could have used different dividing strategies, but chose balanced folds in order to give a equal chance to all machine learning techniques, also those that have trouble with unbalanced data.
If, in any application, unbalanced collections are expected, the effects of biases, and corrections for them, will have to be investigated.
Most of them rely on the tokenization described above.
We will illustrate the options we explored with the tweet ANONYMISED Hahaha...
I believe that mister B has opted for a plan before sleeping ng which after preprocessing becomes hahaha...
Top 100 Function Words The most frequent function words see Kestemont 2014 for an overview.
We used the 100 most frequent, as measured on our tweet collection, of which the example tweet contains the words ik, dat, heeft, op, een, voor, and het.
Then, we used a set of feature types based on token n-grams, with which we already had previous experience Van Bael and van Halteren 2007.
For all feature types, we used only those features which were observed with at least 5 authors in our whole collection for skip bigrams 10 authors.
Unigrams Single tokens, similar to the top function words, but then using all tokens instead of a subset.
In the example tweet, we find e.
Bigrams Two adjacent tokens.
In the example tweet, e.
Trigrams Three adjacent tokens.
In the example tweet, e.
Skip bigrams Two tokens in the tweet, but not adjacent, without any restrictions on the gap size.
In the example tweet, e.
Finally, we included feature types based on character n-grams following Kjell et al.
We used the n-grams with n from 1 to 5, again only when the n-gram was observed with at least 5 authors.
However, we used two types of character n-grams.
The first set is derived from the tokenizer output, and can be viewed as a kind of normalized character n-grams.
Normalized 1-gram About 350 features.
In the example tweet, e.
Normalized 2-gram About 4K features.
In the example tweet, e.
Normalized 3-gram About 36K features.
In the example tweet, e.
Normalized 4-gram About 160K features.
In the example tweet, e.
Normalized 5-gram About 420K features.
In the example tweet, e.
The second set of character n-grams is derived from the original tweets.
This type of character n-gram has the clear advantage of not needing any preprocessing in the form of tokenization.
Original 1-gram About 420 features.
In the example tweet, e.
In the example tweet, e.
Original 3-gram About 77K features.
In the example tweet, e.
Original 4-gram About 260K features.
In the example tweet, e.
Original 5-gram About 580K features.
In the example tweet, e.
Again, we decided to explore more than one option, but here we preferred more focus and restricted ourselves to three systems.
Our primary choice for classification was the use of Support Vector Machines, viz.
LIBSVM Chang and Lin, 2001.
We chose Support Vector Regression ?-SVR to be exact with an RBF kernel, as it had shown the best results in several research projects e.
The second classification system was Linguistic Profiling LP; van Halteren 2004 , which was specifically designed for authorship recognition and profiling.
Roughly speaking, it classifies on the basis of noticeable over- and underuse of specific features.
Before being used in comparisons, all feature counts were normalized to counts per 1000 words, and then transformed to Z-scores with regard to the average and standard deviation within each feature.
Here the grid search investigated: the hyperparameter emphasizing the difference between text feature and profile feature to polynomial exponents set to 0.
Finally, we added TiMBL Daelemans et al.
As the input features are numerical, we used IB1 with k equal to 5 so that we can derive a confidence value.
The only hyperparameters we varied in the grid search are the metric Numerical and Cosine distance and the weighting no weighting, information gain, gain ratio, chi-square, shared variance, and standard deviation.
However, the high dimensionality of our vectors presented us with a problem.
For such high numbers of features, it is known that k-NN learning is unlikely to yield useful results Beyer et al.
This meant that, if we still wanted to use k-NN, we would have to reduce the dimensionality of our feature vectors.
We chose to use Principal Component Analysis PCA; Pearson 1901 , Hotelling 1933.
For each system, we provided the first N principal components for various N.
In effect, this N is a further hyperparameter, which we varied from 1 to the total number of components usually 600, as there are 600 authors , using a stepsize of 1 from 1 to 10, and then slowly increasing the stepsize to a maximum of 20 when over 300.
Rather than using fixed hyperparameters, we let the control shell choose them automatically in a grid search procedure, based on development data.
When running the underlying systems 7.
As scaling is not possible when there are columns with constant values, such columns were removed first.
For each setting and author, the systems report both a selected class and a floating point score, which can be used as a confidence score.
In order to improve the robustness of the hyperparameter selection, the best three settings were chosen and used for classifying the current author in question.
A final detail that we exploited is that SVR and LP are asymmetric in the modeling of the classes.
For LP, this is by design.
For SVR, one would expect symmetry, as both classes are modeled simultaneously, and differ merely in the sign of the numeric class identifier.
However, we do observe different behaviour when reversing the signs.
For this reason, we did all classification with SVR and LP twice, once building a male model and once a female model.
For both models the control shell calculated a final score, starting with the three outputs for the best hyperparameter settings.
It normalized these by expressing them as the number of non-model class standard deviations over the threshold, which was set at the class separation value.
The control shell then weighted each score by multiplying it by the class separation value on the development data for the settings in question, and derived the final score by averaging.
It then chose the class for which the final score is highest.
In this way, we also get two confidence values, viz.
Results In this section, we will present the overall results of the gender recognition.
We start with the accuracy of the various features and systems Section 5.
Then we will focus on the effect of preprocessing the input vectors with PCA Section 5.
After this, we examine the classification of individual authors Section 5.
For the systems, both SVR and LP are used with the original case vectors as well as with PCA preprocessing, where TiMBL, for reasons mentioned above, is used only with preprocessed vectors.
For the measurements with PCA, the number of principal components provided to the classification system is learned from the development data.
Below, in Section 5.
Starting with the systems, we see that SVR using original vectors consistently outperforms the other two.
For only one feature type, character trigrams, LP with PCA manages to reach a higher accuracy than SVR, but the difference is not statistically significant.
LP and TiMBL are closely matched, although LP appears to be slightly better when combined with PCA, but the next section will shed new light on this comparison.
From the measurements here, we can conclude that LP profits from PCA preprocessing, but SVR is better off with the original vectors.
This gives the best chances that the selected optimal hyperparameters generalize to the author in question.
Where Cohen assumes the two distributions have the same standard deviation, we use the sum of the two, practically always different, standard deviations.
For each feature type, the best percentage is bolded, and all percentages are italicized that are not statistically significantly different at the 5% level.
Feature type Techniques Support Vector Regression Linguistic Profiling TiMBL original with PCA original with PCA with PCA Top 100 Function Words 84.
In fact, for all the tokens n-grams, it would seem that the further one goes away from the unigrams, the worse the accuracy gets.
An explanation for this might be that recognition is mostly on the basis of the content of the tweet, and unigrams represent the content most clearly.
Possibly, the other n-grams are just mirroring this quality of the unigrams, with the effectiveness of the mirror depending on how well unigrams are represented in the n-grams.
For the character n-grams, our first observation is that the normalized versions are always better than the original versions.
This means that the content of the n-grams is more important than their form.
This is in accordance with the hypothesis just suggested for the token n-grams, as normalization too brings the character n-grams closer to token unigrams.
The best performing character n-grams normalized 5-grams , will be most closely linked to the token unigrams, with some token bigrams thrown in, as well as a smidgen of the use of morphological processes.
However, we cannot conclude that what is wiped away by the normalization, use of diacritics, capitals and spacing, holds no information for the gender recognition.
To test that, we would have to experiment with a new feature types, modeling exactly the difference between the normalized and the original form.
This number was treated as just another hyperparameter to be selected.
In this section, we want to investigate how strong this dependency may have been.
The dotted line represents the accuracy of SVR without PCA preprocessing.
Figures 1, 2, and 3 show accuracy measurements for the token unigrams, token bigrams, and normalized character 5-grams, for all three systems at various numbers of principal components.
The dotted line is at the accuracy of SVR without PCA.
For the unigrams, SVR reaches its peak 94.
TiMBL closely follows SVR, but only reaches its best score 94.
Interestingly, it is SVR that degrades at higher numbers of principal components, while TiMBL, said to need fewer dimensions, manages to hold on to the recognition quality.
LP peaks much earlier 93.
However, it does not manage to achieve good results with the 80-100 principal components that were best for the other two systems.
Furthermore, LP appears to suffer some kind of mathematical breakdown for higher numbers of components.
If we look at these measurements, it would seem we should prefer TiMBL over LP, which is in contradiction to what we see in Table 1.
Although LP performs worse than it could on fixed numbers of principal components, its more detailed confidence score allows a better hyperparameter selection, on average selecting around 9 principal components, where TiMBL chooses a wide range of numbers, and generally far lower than is optimal.
We expect that the performance with TiMBL can be improved greatly with the development of a better hyperparameter selection mechanism.
For the bigrams Figure 2 , we see much the same picture, although there are differences in the details.
SVR now already reaches its peak 94.
TiMBL peaks a bit later at 200 with 94.
And LP just mirrors its behaviour with unigrams.
For the normalized character 5-grams, SVR is clearly better than TiMBL, with peaks 94.
LP keeps its peak at 10, but now even lower than for the token n-grams 92.
All in all, we can conclude that SVR without PCA is still the best choice.
However, all systems are in principle able to reach the same quality i.
Even with an automatically selected number, LP already profits clearly 179 1.
The dotted line represents the accuracy of SVR without PCA preprocessing.
And TiMBL is currently underperforming, but might be a challenger to SVR when provided with a better hyperparameter selection mechanism.
We will focus on the token n-grams and the normalized character 5-grams.
As for systems, we will involve all five systems in the discussion.
However, our starting point will always be SVR with token unigrams, this being the best performing combination.
We will only look at the final scores for each combination, and forgo the extra detail of any underlying separate male and female model scores which we have for SVR and LP; see above.
As can be seen in Figure 4, the two scores for SVR match almost completely anyway Pearson Correlation -0.
When we look at his tweets, we see a kind of financial blog, which is an exception in the population we have in our corpus.
The exception also leads to more varied classification by the different systems, yielding a wide range of scores.
SVR tends to place him clearly in the male area with all the feature types, with unigrams at the extreme with a score of -3.
LP and TiMBL also show scores all over the range.
Figure 4 shows that the male population contains some more extreme exponents than the female population.
The most obvious male is author 430, with a resounding -6.
Looking at his texts, we indeed see a prototypical young male Twitter user: the addressed topics mainly consist of soccer, gaming, school, and music all of which we will see again below, when examining the most gender 11.
This is rather different for LP, but the focus is on SVR here.
From this point on in the discussion, we will present female confidence as positive numbers and male as negative.
The dotted line represents the accuracy of SVR without PCA preprocessing.
All systems have no trouble recognizing him as a male, with the lowest scores around 1 for the top 100 function words.
If we look at the rest of the top males Table 2 , we may see more varied topics, but the wide recognizability stays.
Unigrams are mostly closely mirrored by the character 5-grams, as could already be suspected from the content of these two feature types.
For the other feature types, we see some variation, but most scores are found near the top of the lists.
Table 2: Top ranking males in SVR on token unigrams, with ranks and feature types.
Feature type 430 344 564 Unigram 1: -6.
The best recognizable female, author 264, is not as focused as her male counterpart.
There is much more variation in the topics, but most of it is clearly girl talk of the type described in Section 5.
In scores, too, we see far more variation.
Even the character 5-grams have ranks up to 40 for this top-5.
Another interesting group of authors is formed by the misclassified ones.
Taking again SVR on unigrams as our starting point, this group contains 11 males and 16 females.
The dashed line represents the separation threshold, i.
The dotted line represents exactly opposite scores for the two genders.
Feature type 264 13 75 43 298 Unigram 1: 3.
Feature type 352 355 386 566 Unigram 0.
With one exception author 355 is recognized as male when using trigrams , all feature types agree on the misclassification.
This may support our hypothesis that all feature types are doing more or less the same.
But it might also mean that the gender just influences all feature types to a similar degree.
In addition, the recognition is of course also influenced by our particular selection of authors, as we will see shortly.
Apart from the general agreement on the final decision, the feature types vary widely in the scores assigned, but this also allows for both conclusions.
The male which is attributed the most female score is author 352.
On re examination, we see a clearly male first name and also profile photo.
However, his Twitter network contains mostly female friends.
This apparently colours not only the discussion topics, which might be expected, but also the general language use.
The unigrams do not judge him to write in an extremely female way, but all other feature types do.
When looking at his tweets, we 13.
This has also been remarked by Bamman et al.
Table 5: Most strongly misclassified females in various feature types.
Feature type 103 Unigram -3.
The most extreme misclassification is reserved for a female, author 103.
This turns out to be Judith Sargentini, a member of the European Parliament, who tweets under the name judithineuropa.
LP with PCA on skipgrams assigns her a female score of 1.
In this case, it would seem that the systems are thrown off by the political texts.
Apparently, in our sample, politics is a male thing.
We did a quick spot check with author 113, a girl who plays soccer and is therefore also misclassified often; here, the PCA version agrees with and misclassified even stronger than the original unigrams -0.
In later research, when we will try to identify the various user types on Twitter, we will certainly have another look at this phenomenon.
Are they mostly targeting the content of the tweets, i.
In this section, we will attempt to get closer to the answer to this question.
Again, we take the token unigrams as a starting point.
However, looking at SVR is not an option here.
Because of the way in which SVR does its classification, hyperplane separation in a transformed version of the vector space, it is impossible to determine which features do the most work.
Instead, we will just look at the distribution of the various features over the female and male texts.
Figure 5 shows all token unigrams.
The ones used more by women are plotted in green, those used more by men in red.
The position in the plot represents the relative number of men and women who used the token at least once somewhere in their tweets.
However, for classification, it is more important how often the token is used by each gender.
We represent this quality by the class separation value that we described in Section 4.
As the separation value and the percentages are generally correlated, the bigger tokens are found further away from the diagonal, while the area close to the diagonal contains mostly unimportant and therefore unreadable tokens.
On the female side, we see a representation of the world of the prototypical young female Twitter user.
Clearly, shopping is also important, as is watching soaps on television gtst.
The age is reconfirmed by the endearingly high presence of mama and papa.
Identity disclosed with permission.
And by TweetGenie as well.
An alternative hypothesis was that Sargentini does not write her own tweets, but assigns this task to a male press spokesperson.
However, we received confirmation that she writes almost all her tweets herself Sargentini, personal communication.
On the male side, we see a rather different world.
On the right edge of the plot, though, we do also observe some function words.
Finally, mentioning other users is apparently more often done by men.
It is no wonder that classifying different types of authors, such as politicians and financial bloggers, is more problematic.
The font size of the words indicates to which degree they differentiate between the gender when also taking into account the relative frequencies of occurrence.
Although most distinguishing tokens appear to be related to content, we do observe some stylerelated tokens.
In Figure 6, we show a plot for the top 100 function words or rather tokens , which was the only feature type focusing on style in our experiments.
We can now observe various distinguishing tokens which were so far lost in the dense cloud of words.
They correspond to what earlier research see Section 2 has observed.
Looking at the bigrams, which we will not plot here, we see a few more style-related constructions appearing.
On the male side, there are also mostly combinations of already observed unigrams, but also the more pragmatic ending of tweets with the word man, in man!
All in all, there appear to be quite a few features related to style after all.
Furthermore, the top 100 function words are doing quite well, with 84.
On the other hand, we cannot escape the impression that even these style features are more often related to what is being tweeted about, than to personal writing style.
Conclusion and Future Work We have investigated how well the gender of authors on Twitter can be determined on the basis of token or character n-grams.
We find that recognition is possible with a high accuracy, up to 95.
Furthermore, some of the errors are probably related to the fact that the authors in question are different from the typical Twitter users dominating our data set.
The best feature type for recognition appears to be the token unigrams, with the most distinguishing tokens linked to the typical activities of the dominant Twitter users.
As for classification systems, Support Vector Regression clearly performs best with all feature types.
During our investigation into gender recognition, we have also experimented with the use of Principal Component Analysis as a preprocessing step to classification.
It was already known that this step was necessary for k-NN learning.
We found that SVR is actually hampered rather than helped by the preprocessing.
Its accuracy degrades when using PCA, although often not significantly.
For Linguistic Profiling, PCA increases accuracy, in some cases enabling it to reach a score which is no longer significantly worse than that of SVR.
The number of principal components provided to the learners was determined automatically on the basis of development data.
It has remained unclear to which degree gender can be recognized on the basis of style features.
Although the use of all unigrams for classification yields far better results than the use of the 100 most frequent function words, the latter are certainly not doing badly.
Furthermore, our closer examination in Section 5.
We will revisit this question when we have larger n-gram sets available which can be assumed to be largely domain-independent.
Not only did we predict just one user trait, but we also considered just a very select class of users, namely individual users with a significant tweet volume.
We will still need to test the minimum number of words on which the classifier can maintain its current high quality.
Furthermore, we will need to build classifiers to distinguish between individual user accounts, shared user accounts, accounts controlled by boards of editors, and tweetbots.
It may also be useful to distinguish between different uses of Twitter, such as professional communication and social chitchat, and build separate metadata estimators for these different uses.
Even more importantly, we will need to look beyond very specific lexical features.
If we base metadata on a limited number of such features, we will never be able to use the resulting data for studying language use or social behaviour.
If we would try, we would fall victim to circular reasoning, such as observing that only men ever play soccer, 17.
We are currently laying the basis for the construction of such sets in other work van Halteren and Oostdijk Submitted.
Therefore, if we ever want to automatically add metadata, it will have to be with as many information sources as possible, preferably only using that metadata on which various sources agree.
References Bamman, David, Jacob Eisenstein, and Tyler Schnoebelen 2014 , Gender identity and lexical variation in social media, Journal of Sociolinguistics.
Chang, Chih-Chung and Chih-Jen Lin 2011 , LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines, ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 2 27 , pp.
Cohen, Jacob 1988 , Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences second ed.
Daelemans, Walter, Jakub Zavrel, Ko van der Sloot, and Antal Van den Bosch 2004 , Timbl: Tilburg memory-based learner, Technical Report ILK-0209, Tilburg University.
Morawski 2012 , Inferring gender from the content of tweets: A region specific example, Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, North America, May 2012.
Piskorski 2009 , New Twitter research: Men follow men and nobody tweets, Harvard Business Review.
Juola, Patrick 2008 , Authorship Attribution, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Addison Woods, and Ophir Frieder 1994 , Discrimination of authorship using visualization, Inf.
Koppel, Moshe, Jonathan Schler, and Shlomo Argamon 2009 , Computational methods in authorship attribution, J.
Koppel, Moshe, Schlomo Argamon, and Anata Rachel Shimony 2002 , Automatically categorizing written texts by author gender, Literary and Linguistic Computing 17 4 , pp.
Narayanan, Arvind, Hristo Paskov, Neil Zhenqiang Gong, John Bethencourt, Eui Chul, Richard Shin, and Dawn Song 2012 , On the feasibility of internet-scale author identification, Proceedings of the 33rd conference on IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy.
Do? gru? iphone 4 slotje naast batterij iphone 4 slotje naast batterij iphone 4 slotje naast batterij iphone 4 slotje naast batterij iphone 4 slotje naast batterij iphone 4 slotje naast batterij

How to Insert a SIM Card into Apple iPhone 4/4S



Het codeslot van je iPhone Iphone 4 slotje naast batterij

februari | 2015 | Internet archief – plus | Pagina 2 Iphone 4 slotje naast batterij

Om je iPhone te beveiligen tegen misbruik kan je naast een pincode. De toegangscode die je kan ingeven bestaat standaard uit 4 cijfers, door. Handig dat code slot en de mogelijkheid om alle gegevens na tien keer fout invoeren te wissen... iOS 13: Levensduur van iPhone batterij verlengen dankzij�...
Catalina 28 foot sailboat for sale. Denge bozuklugu. Free open source network monitoring software for windows.. Iphone 6 slotje naast batterij. India' s�...
Dit verschil is pas echt te zien als beide types naast elkaar liggen. Voordeel van het full HD-scherm is dat de accu langer mee zou moeten�...

COMMENTS:


21.12.2019 in 08:17 Sagar:

At me a similar situation. It is possible to discuss.



23.12.2019 in 09:19 Mezishura:

From shoulders down with! Good riddance! The better!



18.12.2019 in 22:34 Kazrarisar:

It is a pity, that now I can not express - there is no free time. I will return - I will necessarily express the opinion on this question.



19.12.2019 in 01:17 Zuluk:

I think, to you will help to find the correct decision. Be not afflicted.



16.12.2019 in 09:18 Dira:

Your phrase, simply charm



14.12.2019 in 11:52 Tezshura:

It really surprises.



24.12.2019 in 01:49 Gogor:

I think, that you commit an error.



22.12.2019 in 23:31 Makinos:

You are absolutely right.



15.12.2019 in 21:13 Turg:

Certainly. I agree with told all above. We can communicate on this theme.



19.12.2019 in 01:06 Gazilkree:

What words... A fantasy




Total 10 comments.