In the following sections, we first present some previous work on gender recognition (Section 2). Currently the field is getting an impulse for further development now that vast data sets of user generated data is becoming available. (2012) show that authorship recognition is also possible (to some degree) if the number of candidate authors is as high as 100,000 (as compared to the usually less than ten in traditional studies).Then we describe our experimental data and the evaluation method (Section 3), after which we proceed to describe the various author profiling strategies that we investigated (Section 4). Gender Recognition Gender recognition is a subtask in the general field of authorship recognition and profiling, which has reached maturity in the last decades(for an overview, see e.g. Even so, there are circumstances where outright recognition is not an option, but where one must be content with profiling, i.e.
172 For Tweets in Dutch, we first look at the official user interface for the Twi NL data set, Among other things, it shows gender and age statistics for the users producing the tweets found for user specified searches.2006)), containing about 700,000 posts to (in total about 140 million words) by almost 20,000 bloggers. Slightly more information seems to be coming from content (75.1% accuracy) than from style (72.0% accuracy). We see the women focusing on personal matters, leading to important content words like love and boyfriend, and important style words like I and other personal pronouns.For each blogger, metadata is present, including the blogger s self-provided gender, age, industry and astrological sign. The creators themselves used it for various classification tasks, including gender recognition (Koppel et al. The men, on the other hand, seem to be more interested in computers, leading to important content words like software and game, and correspondingly more determiners and prepositions.Their features were hash tags, token unigrams and psychometric measurements provided by the Linguistic Inquiry of Word Count software (LIWC; (Pennebaker et al. Although LIWC appears a very interesting addition, it hardly adds anything to the classification.With only token unigrams, the recognition accuracy was 80.5%, while using all features together increased this only slightly to 80.6%. (2014) examined about 9 million tweets by 14,000 Twitter users tweeting in American English.