Task Title: Data Wrangling (Part A)
Subject Code: SET11121 / SET11521
Objective: There are two objectives associated with this assignment. The first objective is to perform a literature review on recent approaches to abusive language detection technique. The second objective is to load given abusive language dataset (JSON file) in the Python programming architecture and perform simple dataset splitting for test and train procedure. Performing simple filtering and frequency analysis also required in the Python code.
Overview: In the literature, review student must use three contemporary research papers (published after 2016) which deals with abusive language detection from the textual content. The size of the document should be around 1200 words.
In the programming task, the student must use three different JSON files given in the resources segment of the task. These three files represent three separate classes of Tweets (neither, racism, sexist). The student must upload these data in the Python code and split them test and train segment. Finally, the student must performa word-based frequency analysis on the dataset.
University: Edinburg Napier
- Python 3.7: Python programming language is required to handle JSON dataset.
- PyCharm: Educational version of the PyCharm is used to manage the resources of the Python program.
- Initially, a Python class has been designed, which can represent the Dataset and its processing functions.
- The class must have a contractor for initializing path for the JSON files and train-test split percentage.
- A text filtering function is also implemented in the in the class.
- For this task NLTK related libraries are used rigorously.
[nltk_data] Downloading package stopwords to
[nltk_data] Unzipping corpora\stopwords.zip.
[nltk_data] Downloading package punkt to
[nltk_data] Unzipping tokenizers\punkt.zip.
Five Most common:[('sexist', 761), ('kat', 717), ('like', 713), ('women', 693), ('islam', 536)]
Least common:('maiming', 1)
Process finished with exit code 0
School of Computing, Napier University Assessment Brief 1. Module numberSET11121 / SET115212. Module titleData Wrangling3. Module leader Dimitra Gkatzia4. Tutor with responsibility for this Assessment Dimitra Gkatzia (D.Gkatzia@napier.ac.uk) 5. AssessmentCoursework6. Weighting 100% of module assessment7. Size and/or time limits for assessment 1700 words plus figures or tables with results and developed code for all questions. 8. Deadline of submission Your attention is drawn to the penalties for late submissionPart A: 08/03/18 at 1500 UK time Part B: 12/04/18 at 1600 UK time9. Arrangements for submission Your Coursework must be submitted via Moodle. Further submission instructions are included in the attached specification, and on Moodle10. Assessment Regulations All assessments are subject to the University Regulations . 11. The requirements for the assessmentSee Attached12. Special instructionsSee Attached13. Return of work Feedback and marks will be provided within three weeks of submission. 14. Assessment criteria Your coursework will be marked using the marking sheet attached as Appendix A. This specifies the criteria that will be used to mark your work. Further discussion of criteria is also included in the coursework specification attached. SET11121 / SET11521 / SET11821 - Data Wrangling Assessment BriefThe assignment aims to cover the learning outcomes speciﬁed for the module:LO1: Critically evaluate the tools and techniques of the data storage, interfacing, aggregation and processingLO2: Select and apply a range of specialised data types, tools and techniques for data storage, interfacing, aggregation and processingLO3: Employ specialised techniques for dealing with complex data sets LO4: Design, develop and critically evaluate data driven applications in PythonThe goal of this assignment is to develop a prediction model for Abusive Language Detection. DataFor this assignment you will require to use the datasets provided on moodle. Part A - 30%. Deadline: Friday 8 March at 3pm (UK time).Deliverable 1: You will need to perform a literature review on recent approaches to abusive language detection. You will need to pick 3 new approaches published after 2016. For each approach, you will need to describe the dataset they used, the approach (including the feature selection), a brief description of their result as well as your critical review (are there any issues with the study, how would you improve it? etc.). Your report must include an introduction (intro to the topic and described methods), background (description of methods as described previously), a discussion (critical analysis), and a summary of your results from Deliverable 2.Deliverable 2: Using the provided datasets, you will need to: Load (in Python) and store the training dataset using one of the approaches you learnt. In the comments explain why you chose to store the data in a particular way. Perform some analysis, e.g. ﬁnd most frequent/infrequent words, number of unique words, Your references should come from international venues (such as conferences and journals). You can look for papers at Google Scholar or at the university library (online). Your report must adhere to citation guidelines - any citation style is acceptable. An example guide can be found here: https://drhazelhall.ﬁles.wordpress.com/2013/01/2005_hall_referencing.pdf SET11121 / SET11521 / SET11821 - Data Wrangling You will submit:Part A consists of two deliverables: Deliverable 1: One .pdf ﬁle of 1200 words. The document should include your name, matriculation number and contact details, as well as tables and a short description of your text analysis. Deliverable 2: Your code with appropriate comments. Everything must be submitted on moodle only!Marking : You will be marked on the content (10%), the structure of the report (5%), the criticality (10%) and the quality of code (5%). See the end of the document for a detailed description of the marking scheme.Part B - 70%. Deadline: Friday 12 April at 3pm (UK time).For the second part of the assignment you will need to develop and evaluate abusive language detection models for the given datasets. You should choose two ML models: one of the ML approaches you were taught in class and one you identiﬁed from the literature. You should produce two models and an evaluation metric (metric taken from literature - you need to justify which metric you chose and why). The goal of this exercise is not to produce a state-of-the-art sentiment analysis model. If your chosen model performs poorly by your selected metric, do not worry—this is not what we are testing. Which model you use, and how you evaluate, is up to you. The choice of model is not important (although we will assume that when you choose a model, you understand what it is and how it works) as well as that the evaluation metric is appropriate. Your solution should be sensible - you should be able to explain why it tests something of impact to the problem. Tips and ClariﬁcationsWe are not looking for models that performs well: we are looking to see that you can build sensible models, i.e. choose meaningful features and perform a sensible evaluation. If you are struggling to make something work with the volume of data present, you can subsample (for instance, randomly pick a proportion of the dataset). You must use Python and its libraries to tackle this task. You are strongly encouraged to make use of third-party libraries for model building and evaluation, rather than writing your own, unless you speciﬁcally need to do something with no library support.You will submit:1. The code of your solution, and a 500 words .pdf document explaining the data pre-processing, model features and evaluation as well as a discussion of your results and suggestions for improvement. If you do any pre-processing to the data, please also include the script you use to do this (or a list of the commands run). Marking : SET11121 / SET11521 / SET11821 - Data Wrangling 40% for method/model, 15% for evaluation, 15% for report and reﬂection. See Appendix A for more explanations. Appendix A: Marking SchemeNo SubmissionVery poorInadequateAdequateGoodVery goodExcellentOutstandingA1Content10%No work submittedLiterature not described adequately, i.e described only the topic or the data, or sources are not relevantLiterature not described adequately, leaving most work unexplainedLiterature described partially: half of its elements coveredLiterature described partiallyLiterature described almost fullyLiterature fully described, covering everythingLiterature fully described and additional investigation was performedA2Structure5%No work submittedReport does not follow the guidelines or word limit The structure of the report requires more workThe structure of the report is ok, but some part is missingThe structure of the report is overall good but there is room for improvementThe structure of the report is very good, naming of titles could improve The structure of the report is excellent The structure of the report is outstanding and professionalA3Criticality 10%No work submittedThe lit has not been criticised The lit review has not been criticised adequately, e.g. no mentioning of speciﬁc drawbacksNot all sources has been criticised. The lit review has been criticised but not thoroughly enoughThe lit review has been criticised thoroughly and good insights has been providedThe lit review has been criticised thoroughly and valuable insights has been providedThe lit has been criticised thoroughly with excellent suggestions for improvementA4Code and explanation5%No work submittedCode with bugsCode with bugs but good explanations or questions answered partly Code without bugs but inadequate explanation Code without bugs and good but not thorough explanation Code without bugs and explanations almost completeExcellent code and thorough explanationsOutstanding code and thorough and thoughtful explanations. SET11121 / SET11521 / SET11821 - Data Wrangling Late submission policyCoursework submitted after the agreed deadline will be marked at a maximum of 40% (undergraduate) or P1 (postgraduate). Coursework submitted over ﬁve working days after the agreed deadline will be given 0% (although formative feedback will be offered where requested).ExtensionsIf you require an extension, please contact the module leader before the deadline. Extensions are only provided for exceptional circumstances and evidence may be required. See the Fit to Sit regulations for more details. PlagiarismPlagiarised work will be dealt with according to the university’s guidelines: http:// www2.napier.ac.uk/ed/plagiarism/ B1Methods/ Models 40%No work submittedCode with bugs and algorithm /model not well describedCode with bugs but algorithm /model well describedCode with a minor bug but algorithm /model not well described and justiﬁed Code with a minor bug but algorithm /model well described and justiﬁed Code without bugs but algorithm /model not described or justiﬁedCode without bugs but algorithm /model not described and justiﬁed in great detailCode without bugs and algorithm /model described and justiﬁed in detailB2Evaluation15%No work submittedNot appropriate evaluation metric chosenNeither the evaluation setup nor the results are described appropriatelyEvaluation setup is not justiﬁed but almost correctly executed and results are mentionedEvaluation setup is not justiﬁed but correctly executed and results are mentionedEvaluation setup is somewhat justiﬁed and results are somewhat mentioned and discussedEvaluation setup is somewhat justiﬁed and results fully described and discussed Evaluation setup is justiﬁed and results fully described and discussedB3Reﬂection15%No work submittedReﬂection and future work suggestions did not make senseNot adequate reﬂection provided neither suggestions for future workEither only reﬂection or suggestions for future work submittedAverage reﬂection and suggestions for future workGood reﬂection and suggestions for future workVery good reﬂection and suggestions for future workExcellent reﬂection and suggestions for future workNo SubmissionVery poorInadequateAdequateGoodVery goodExcellentOutstandingSET11121 / SET11521 / SET11821 - Data Wrangling