Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 469

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

OpinionFinder: a system for subjectivity analysis

Open access
Wilson, Theresa, Hoffmann, Paul, Somasundaran, Swapna, Kessler, Jason, Wiebe, Janyce, Choi, Yejin, Cardie, Claire, Riloff, Ellen, Patwardhan, Siddharth·2005·Proceedings of HLT/EMNLP on Interactive Demonstrations -

Abstract

OpinionFinder is a system that performs subjectivity analysis, automatically identifying when opinions, sentiments, speculations, and other private states are present in text. Specifically, OpinionFinder aims to identify subjective sentences and to mark various aspects of the subjectivity in these sentences, including the source (holder) of the subjectivity and words that are included in phrases expressing positive or negative sentiments.

Overview

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 · 10.3115/1225733.1225751

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cited by

See all 469

Metadata

Authors
Wilson, T., Hoffmann, P., Somasundaran, S., Kessler, J., Wiebe, J., Choi, Y., Cardie, C., Riloff, E., & Patwardhan, S.
Venue
Proceedings of HLT/EMNLP on Interactive Demonstrations -
Published
2005
Pages
34-35
OpenAlex
W2017238344
Cited by
469
References
0
FWCI
5.01
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: OpinionFinder: a system for subjectivity analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3115/1225733.1225751
The paper
Wilson, T., Hoffmann, P., Somasundaran, S., Kessler, J., Wiebe, J., Choi, Y., Cardie, C., Riloff, E., & Patwardhan, S. (2005). OpinionFinder: a system for subjectivity analysis. Proceedings of HLT/EMNLP on Interactive Demonstrations -. https://doi.org/10.3115/1225733.1225751

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.