Is dating haram in islam yahoo answers qualified dating

Later, in 2004, the group collected a Blog Authorship Corpus (BAC; (Schler et al.2006)), containing about 700,000 posts to (in total about 140 million words) by almost 20,000 bloggers. Slightly more information seems to be coming from content (75.1% accuracy) than from style (72.0% accuracy). 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.

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 Ti MBL (Daelemans et al.

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). 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.g. Even so, there are circumstances where outright recognition is not an option, but where one must be content with profiling, i.e.

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. the identification of author traits like gender, age and geographical background.

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.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). Currently the field is getting an impulse for further development now that vast data sets of user generated data is becoming available. (2012) show that authorship recognition is also possible (to some degree) if the number of candidate authors is as high as 100,000 (as compared to the usually less than ten in traditional studies).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.When using all user tweets, they reached an accuracy of 88.0%.

Tags: , ,