def exp06():
"""
Can we predict the log of the number of responses? Not much better.
"""
m = getPoemModel()
poems = m.poems
scores = getNumberOfComments(True) # use log
makePlots(poems, scores, "log of number of comments", "../experiments/exp06.pdf")
runPredictCV(poems, scores, DEFAULT_FEATURE_LIST)
def exp05():
"""
Can we predict the number of responses? Not so well.
"""
m = getPoemModel()
poems = m.poems
scores = getNumberOfComments()
makePlots(poems, scores, "number of comments", "../experiments/exp05.pdf")
runPredictCV(poems, scores, DEFAULT_FEATURE_LIST)
def exp04():
"""
Can we predict poem rating? No, it seems like we cannot predict it so well.
"""
m = getPoemModel()
poems = m.poems
scores = getPoemScores()
makePlots(poems, scores, "poem score", "../experiments/exp04.pdf")
runPredictCV(poems, scores, DEFAULT_FEATURE_LIST)
def exp02():
"""
If comment length is the driver of affect ratio, we should find better
correlations with comment length. However, we cannot predict this very well.
"""
m = getPoemModel()
poems = m.poems
scores = getAverageCommentLength() # plot average comment length
makePlots(poems, scores, "average comment length", "../experiments/exp02.pdf")
runPredictCV(poems, scores, DEFAULT_FEATURE_LIST)
def exp00():
"""
Identify correlation of features with aspect ratios. We can predict
this with about 30% reduction in error over the baseline.
"""
m = getPoemModel()
poems = m.poems
scores = getAffectRatios() # plot average comment length
makePlots(poems, scores, "affect ratio", "../experiments/exp00.pdf")
runPredictCV(poems, scores, DEFAULT_FEATURE_LIST)
def exp08():
"""
If high affect ratio comments are less rich in their analysis/observation,
does this imply that they have a lower type-token ratio? Actually, this
cannot be well predicted. (~0% reduction in accuracy)
"""
m = getPoemModel()
poems = m.poems
scores = getCommentTypeTokenRatio()
makePlots(poems, scores, "comment type token ratio", "../experiments/exp08.pdf")
runPredictCV(poems, scores, DEFAULT_FEATURE_LIST)
def exp09():
"""
Experiment 9:
What is the difference in predicting the affect ratio with predicing the
NRC ratio? Wouldn't this also capture emotion words? We cannot predict this
as well. (Only ~3% over baseline.)
"""
m = getPoemModel()
poems = m.poems
scores = getNRCRatios()
makePlots(poems, scores, "NRC ratio", "../experiments/exp09.pdf")
runPredictCV(poems, scores, DEFAULT_FEATURE_LIST)
def exp03():
"""
We can predict log of average comment length with 10% reduction in error
over baseline (better than average comment length), but this is still worse
than predicting the affect ratio. Why? Is there another descriptive feature
of the comments that we can better describe?
Are the comments with different affect ratios saying the same things
differently or saying different things?
"""
m = getPoemModel()
poems = m.poems
scores = getLogAverageCommentLength()
makePlots(poems, scores, "log of average comment length", "../experiments/exp03.pdf")
runPredictCV(poems, scores, DEFAULT_FEATURE_LIST)
def exp081():
"""
Repeat exp 8, but sample from all of the words. This should control for the
fact that longer documents tend to have lower type-token ratios. We can
predict this with ~15% reduction in error.
This suggests that "richness" of response can be categorized by the type-
token ratio, though this is not so easily predicted as affect ratio. With
experiment 3, we know that we can predict the log of comment length with
~10% accuracy.
Taking note of the sign of the correlation of each variable, this gives us
a definition of 'richness' that includes:
- longer comments
- higher type-token ratio
- lower affect ratio
"""
m = getPoemModel()
poems = m.poems
scores = getCommentTypeTokenRatio(100) # sample words
makePlots(poems, scores, "sampled type-token ratio", "../experiments/exp08.1.pdf")
runPredictCV(poems, scores, DEFAULT_FEATURE_LIST)
