Stance and Sentiment in Tweets
Open accessAbstract
We can often detect from a person’s utterances whether he or she is in favor of or against a given target entity—one’s stance toward the target. However, a person may express the same stance toward a target by using negative or positive language. Here for the first time we present a dataset of tweet–target pairs annotated for both stance and sentiment. The targets may or may not be referred to in the tweets, and they may or may not be the target of opinion in the tweets. Partitions of this dataset were used as training and test sets in a SemEval-2016 shared task competition. We propose a simple stance detection system that outperforms submissions from all 19 teams that participated in the shared task. Additionally, access to both stance and sentiment annotations allows us to explore several research questions. We show that although knowing the sentiment expressed by a tweet is beneficial for stance classification, it alone is not sufficient. Finally, we use additional unlabeled data through distant supervision techniques and word embeddings to further improve stance classification.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Sentiment and opinion contained in a message are two different characteristics of the message.
“Therefore sentiment and opinion contained in a message are two different characteristics of the message.”
From Credibility of climate change denial in social media (2019) · cites this paper as Mohammad et al., 2017
Cites
Mohammad, S. M. (2016) · Emotion Measurement · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-100508-8.00009-6 · Cited by 391 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fake News Detection on Social Media: A Data Mining Perspective
Shu, K., Sliva, A., Wang, S., Tang, J., & Liu, H. (2017) · ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter · doi:10.1145/3137597.3137600 · Cited by 3,304 · see citing works
SemEval-2018 Task 1: Affect in Tweets
Mohammad, S., Bravo-Marquez, F., Salameh, M., & Kiritchenko, S. (2018) · Proceedings of The 12th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation · doi:10.18653/v1/s18-1001 · Cited by 746 · see citing works
Self-citationMohammad, S. M. (2016) · Emotion Measurement · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-100508-8.00009-6 · Cited by 391 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Future of False Information Detection on Social Media: New Perspectives and Trends
Guo, B., Ding, Y., Yao, L., Liang, Y., & Yu, Z. (2021) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3393880 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
Can we trust the evaluation on ChatGPT?
Aiyappa, R., An, J., Kwak, H., & Ahn, Y.-Y. (2023) · Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Trustworthy Natural Language Processing (TrustNLP 2023) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.trustnlp-1.5 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Credibility of climate change denial in social media
Samantray, A., & Pin, P. (2019) · Palgrave Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-019-0344-4 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Morality classification in natural language text
Pavan, M. C., dos Santos, V. G., Lan, A. G. J., Martins, J. T., dos Santos, W. R., Deutsch, C., da Costa, P. B., Hsieh, F. C., & Paraboni, I. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing · doi:10.1109/taffc.2020.3034050 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mohammad, S. M., Sobhani, P., & Kiritchenko, S.
- Affiliations
- National Research Council Canada (CA)
- University of Ottawa (CA)
- Venue
- ACM Transactions on Internet Technology
- Published
- 2017-06-12
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1-23
- ISSN
- 1533-5399 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-6051
- OpenAlex
- W2347127863
- Cited by
- 449
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 59 · 2021: 73 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 10
- FWCI
- 27.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- ACM Transactions on Internet Technology (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada under the CREATE program
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
- Keywords
- stance detection, sentiment analysis, tweets, distant supervision, word embeddings, social media
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review