Datasets:
Tasks:
Text Classification
Sub-tasks:
sentiment-classification
Languages:
English
Size:
10K<n<100K
License:
albertvillanova
HF staff
Convert dataset sizes from base 2 to base 10 in the dataset card (#3)
87fde6d
metadata
annotations_creators:
- expert-generated
language_creators:
- crowdsourced
language:
- en
license:
- unknown
multilinguality:
- monolingual
size_categories:
- 10K<n<100K
source_datasets:
- original
task_categories:
- text-classification
task_ids:
- sentiment-classification
paperswithcode_id: emocontext
pretty_name: EmoContext
dataset_info:
features:
- name: text
dtype: string
- name: label
dtype:
class_label:
names:
'0': others
'1': happy
'2': sad
'3': angry
config_name: emo2019
splits:
- name: train
num_bytes: 2433205
num_examples: 30160
- name: test
num_bytes: 421555
num_examples: 5509
download_size: 3362556
dataset_size: 2854760
Dataset Card for "emo"
Table of Contents
- Dataset Description
- Dataset Structure
- Dataset Creation
- Considerations for Using the Data
- Additional Information
Dataset Description
- Homepage: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/S19-2005/
- Repository: More Information Needed
- Paper: More Information Needed
- Point of Contact: More Information Needed
- Size of downloaded dataset files: 3.37 MB
- Size of the generated dataset: 2.85 MB
- Total amount of disk used: 6.22 MB
Dataset Summary
In this dataset, given a textual dialogue i.e. an utterance along with two previous turns of context, the goal was to infer the underlying emotion of the utterance by choosing from four emotion classes - Happy, Sad, Angry and Others.
Supported Tasks and Leaderboards
Languages
Dataset Structure
Data Instances
emo2019
- Size of downloaded dataset files: 3.37 MB
- Size of the generated dataset: 2.85 MB
- Total amount of disk used: 6.22 MB
An example of 'train' looks as follows.
{
"label": 0,
"text": "don't worry i'm girl hmm how do i know if you are what's ur name"
}
Data Fields
The data fields are the same among all splits.
emo2019
text: astringfeature.label: a classification label, with possible values includingothers(0),happy(1),sad(2),angry(3).
Data Splits
| name | train | test |
|---|---|---|
| emo2019 | 30160 | 5509 |
Dataset Creation
Curation Rationale
Source Data
Initial Data Collection and Normalization
Who are the source language producers?
Annotations
Annotation process
Who are the annotators?
Personal and Sensitive Information
Considerations for Using the Data
Social Impact of Dataset
Discussion of Biases
Other Known Limitations
Additional Information
Dataset Curators
Licensing Information
Citation Information
@inproceedings{chatterjee-etal-2019-semeval,
title={SemEval-2019 Task 3: EmoContext Contextual Emotion Detection in Text},
author={Ankush Chatterjee and Kedhar Nath Narahari and Meghana Joshi and Puneet Agrawal},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation},
year={2019},
address={Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA},
publisher={Association for Computational Linguistics},
url={https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/S19-2005},
doi={10.18653/v1/S19-2005},
pages={39--48},
abstract={In this paper, we present the SemEval-2019 Task 3 - EmoContext: Contextual Emotion Detection in Text. Lack of facial expressions and voice modulations make detecting emotions in text a challenging problem. For instance, as humans, on reading ''Why don't you ever text me!'' we can either interpret it as a sad or angry emotion and the same ambiguity exists for machines. However, the context of dialogue can prove helpful in detection of the emotion. In this task, given a textual dialogue i.e. an utterance along with two previous turns of context, the goal was to infer the underlying emotion of the utterance by choosing from four emotion classes - Happy, Sad, Angry and Others. To facilitate the participation in this task, textual dialogues from user interaction with a conversational agent were taken and annotated for emotion classes after several data processing steps. A training data set of 30160 dialogues, and two evaluation data sets, Test1 and Test2, containing 2755 and 5509 dialogues respectively were released to the participants. A total of 311 teams made submissions to this task. The final leader-board was evaluated on Test2 data set, and the highest ranked submission achieved 79.59 micro-averaged F1 score. Our analysis of systems submitted to the task indicate that Bi-directional LSTM was the most common choice of neural architecture used, and most of the systems had the best performance for the Sad emotion class, and the worst for the Happy emotion class}
}
Contributions
Thanks to @thomwolf, @lordtt13, @lhoestq for adding this dataset.