Transformer-based cynical expression detection in a corpus of Spanish YouTube reviews

Paper · Source
Social Theory and SocietyNatural Language InferenceNLP and LinguisticsSentiment, Semantics, and Toxicity Detection

Consumers of services and products exhibit a wide range of behaviors on social networks when they are dissatisfied. In this paper, we consider three types of cynical expressions – negative feelings, specific reasons, and attitude of being right – and annotate a corpus of 3189 comments in Spanish on car analysis channels from YouTube. We evaluate both token classification and text classification settings for this problem, and compare performance of different pre-trained models including BETO, Span- BERTa, Multilingual Bert, and RoBERTuito. The results show that models achieve performance above 0.8 F1 for all types of cynical expressions in the text classification setting, but achieve lower performance (around 0.6-0.7 F1) for the harder token classification setting.

Introduction. Consumers of services and products actively engage through social networks when they are dissatisfied, exhibiting a wide range of behaviors. Encinas and Cavazos (2021). Encinas presents a classification of dysfunctional consumer behaviors: mild behaviors such as rudeness, complaints, skepticism, or tantrums; moderate behaviors such as manifestations of cynicism, attempts at manipulation, or inappropriate comments and foul language; and intense consumer behaviors such as fraud, theft, verbal aggression, or revenge. We focus on cynical expressions of consumers, specifically in comments written in videos on the Youtube platform. Cynicism is a negative attitude with a broad or specific focus and comprises cognitive, affective, and behavioral components (Chylinski and Chu, 2010). Consumer cynicism can generate feelings of betrayal and deception, leading to anger and the desire to stop purchasing products or services from the source that generates their anger (Encinas and Cavazos, 2021). Within expressions of cynicism, we focus on the following specific expressions:

Discussion / Conclusion. The results achieved in the experiment show that it is possible to detect the three cynical expressions with reasonable reliability. Some of the results are discussed below. Performance was higher on the easier text classification task and lower on the more challenging token classification task. However, token classification is closer to the objective of this work, detecting exactly which part of the comment represents the cynical expression. To extend the success of the text classification setting to the token classification setting, it may be useful to investigate two-stage approaches, where text classification is first used to identify the broad region of the cynical expressions and token classification is then used to narrow down to the specific phrases. The experiments with RoBERTuito highlight that simply using a model trained for hate speech detection will not provide a solution for cynical expression detection, even in the related category of negative feelings: a non-fine-tuned RoBERTuito achieves only 0.671 F1, while a fine-tuned mBERT achieves 0.925 F1.

Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24

Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.

What linguistic features distinguish AI-generated text from human writing most reliably? How does AI-generated content undermine authentic engagement on social platforms? Why do people disclose to AI systems despite their artificial nature? Does AI assistance promote real skill development or substitute for independent learning? Why do some clarifying approaches produce understanding while others just satisfy? How do evaluation practices shape which failures stay visible? What reasoning architectures enable models to solve complex problems efficiently? Should GUI agents use structured representations over raw visual input? What enables genuine semantic understanding in language models? Do knowledge graphs offer advantages over embeddings for multi-hop retrieval? Is reasoning capability latent in base models or created by post-training? Do language models develop actual world models or merely task heuristics? Does chain-of-thought reasoning reveal genuine computation or imitate patterns? Why do persona simulations fail to predict authentic user behavior? Can mechanistic interpretability reliably guide practical model design choices?