When using all user tweets, they reached an accuracy of 88.0%.
An interesting observation is that there is a clear class of misclassified users who have a majority of opposite gender users in their social network. When adding more information sources, such as profile fields, they reach an accuracy of 92.0%.
For gender, the system checks the profile for about 150 common male and 150 common female first names, as well as for gender related words, such as father, mother, wife and husband.
If no cue is found in a user s profile, no gender is assigned.
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.
They used lexical features, and present a very good breakdown of various word types.
2009) managed to increase the gender recognition quality to 89.2%, using sentence length, 35 non-dictionary words, and 52 slang words.
We also varied the recognition features provided to the techniques, using both character and token n-grams.In this case, the Twitter profiles of the authors are available, but these consist of freeform text rather than fixed information fields.And, obviously, it is unknown to which degree the information that is present is true.For our experiment, we selected 600 authors for whom we were able to determine with a high degree of certainty a) that they were human individuals and b) what gender they were.We then experimented with several author profiling techniques, namely Support Vector Regression (as provided by LIBSVM; (Chang and Lin 2011)), Linguistic Profiling (LP; (van Halteren 2004)), and Ti MBL (Daelemans et al.