Cited by 263Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining

TimeLMs: Diachronic Language Models from Twitter

Open access
Loureiro, Daniel, Barbieri, Francesco, Neves, Leonardo, Espinosa Anke, Luis, Camacho-collados, Jose·2022·Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations

Abstract

Daniel Loureiro, Francesco Barbieri, Leonardo Neves, Luis Espinosa Anke, Jose Camacho-collados. Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations. 2022.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2022.acl-demo.25

Cites

36 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The sentiment classifier based on RoBERTa was fine-tuned for sentiment classification and provides strong sentiment analysis performance with a neutral sentiment class.

    “We then classified the sentences into positive, neutral or negative using a sentiment classifier based on RoBERTa49, which was fine-tuned for sentiment classification50.”

    From Generative language models exhibit social identity biases (2024) · cites this paper as [50]

    Section 4.1 (page unavailable) says the evaluated language models use the RoBERTa-base architecture, includes sentiment analysis among the classification tasks, and reports competitive sentiment results in Table 2. It describes training models for each task, but does not specify a neutral sentiment class or establish that the citing authors used one of these evaluated classifiers to label their sentences. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Loureiro, D., Barbieri, F., Neves, L., Espinosa Anke, L., & Camacho-collados, J.
Affiliations
Universidade do Porto (PT)
Venue
Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations
Published
2022
Pages
251-260
OpenAlex
W4285190530
Cited by
263
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 55 · 2025: 66 · 2024: 68 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 23
FWCI
28.76
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations (ACL Demo) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Keywords
Twitter, social media text, language change

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