Datasets:
Tasks:
Text Classification
Modalities:
Text
Formats:
csv
Sub-tasks:
sentiment-classification
Languages:
English
Size:
10K - 100K
Tags:
conversation
License:
metadata
annotations_creators:
- expert-generated
language_creators:
- crowdsourced
license: mpl-2.0
task_categories:
- text-classification
task_ids:
- sentiment-classification
language:
- en
tags:
- conversation
size_categories:
- 10K<n<100K
source_datasets:
- emo
pretty_name: Cleansed_EmoContext
dataset_info:
features:
- name: turn1
dtype: string
- name: turn2
dtype: string
- name: turn3
dtype: string
- name: label
dtype:
class_label:
names:
'0': others
'1': happy
'2': sad
'3': angry
config_name: cleansed_emo2019
Dataset Card for "cleansed_emocontext"
cleansed_emocontextis a cleansed and normalized version ofemo.- For cleansing and normalization,
data_cleansing.pywas used, modifying the code provided on the official EmoContext GitHub.
Table of Contents
- Dataset Description
- Dataset Structure
- Dataset Creation
- Considerations for Using the Data
- Additional Information
Dataset Description
- Homepage: SemEval-2019 Task 3: EmoContext Contextual Emotion Detection in Text
- Repository: More Information Needed
- Paper: SemEval-2019 Task 3: EmoContext Contextual Emotion Detection in Text
- 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
cleansed_emo2019
An example of 'train' looks as follows.
{
"label": 0,
"turn1": "don't worry i'm girl",
"turn2": "hmm how do i know if you are",
"turn3": "what's your name ?"
}
Data Fields
The data fields are the same among all splits.
cleansed_emo2019
turn1,turn2,turn3: astringfeature.label: a classification label, with possible values includingothers(0),happy(1),sad(2),angry(3).
Data Splits
| name | train | dev | test |
|---|---|---|---|
| cleansed_emo2019 | 30160 | 2755 | 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}
}