References
Orwell, G. Nineteen Eighty-Four 69–70 (Penguin Books, 1949).
Park, G. et al. Automatic personality assessment through social media language. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 108, 934–952 (2015).
Oberlander, J. & Gill, A. J. Language with character: a stratified corpus comparison of individual differences in e-mail communication. Discourse Process. 42, 239–270 (2006).
Moreno, J. D., Martinez-Huertas, J. A., Olmos, R., Jorge-Botana, G. & Botella, J. Can personality traits be measured analyzing written language? A meta-analytic study on computational methods. Pers. Individ. Dif. 177, 110818 (2021).
Mairesse, F., Walker, M. A., Mehl, M. R. & Moore, R. K. Using linguistic cues for the automatic recognition of personality in conversation and text. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 30, 457–500 (2007).
Schwartz, H. A. et al. Personality, gender, and age in the language of social media: the open-vocabulary approach. PLoS ONE 8, 73791 (2013).
Kramsch, C. Language and culture. AILA Rev. 27, 30–55 (2014).
Gumperz, J. The speech community. Int. Encycl. Soc. Sci. 9, 381–386 (1968).
Nguyen, D. & Rosé, C. P. Language use as a reflection of socialization in online communities. In Proc. Workshop on Language in Social Media (eds Nagarajan, M. & Gamon, M.) 76–85 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2011).
Bamman, D., Eisenstein, J. & Schnoebelen, T. Gender identity and lexical variation in social media. J. Socioling. 18, 135–160 (2014).
Pennebaker, J. W. The secret life of pronouns. New Sci. 211, 42–45 (2011).
Robinson, M. D., Boyd, R. L., Fetterman, A. K. & Persich, M. R. The mind versus the body in political (and nonpolitical) discourse: linguistic evidence for an ideological signature in US politics. J. Lang. Soc. Psychol. 36, 438–461 (2017).
Huang, Y., Guo, D., Kasakoff, A. & Grieve, J. Understanding US regional linguistic variation with Twitter data analysis. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 59, 244–255 (2016).
Eisenstein, J., O’Connor, B., Smith, N. A. & Xing, E. A latent variable model for geographic lexical variation. In Proc. 2010 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (eds Li, H. & Màrquez, L.) 1277–1287 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2010).
Peterson, K., Hohensee, M. & Xia, F. Email formality in the workplace: a case study on the enron corpus. In Proc. Workshop on Language in Social Media (LSM 2011) (eds Nagarajan, M. & Gamon, M.) 86–95 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2011).
Stamatatos, E. A survey of modern authorship attribution methods. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60, 538–556 (2009).
Grieve, J. Quantitative authorship attribution: an evaluation of techniques. Lit. Ling. Comput. 22, 251–270 (2007).
Cassell, J. & Tversky, D. The language of online intercultural community formation. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 10, 1027 (2005).
Danet, B. & Herring, S. C. Introduction: the multilingual internet. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 9, 9110 (2003).
Kennedy, B. et al. Moral concerns are differentially observable in language. Cognition 212, 104696 (2021).
Jackson, J. C., Gelfand, M., De, S. & Fox, A. The loosening of American culture over 200 years is associated with a creativity–order trade-off. Nat. Hum. Behav. 3, 244–250 (2019).
Hofmann, V., Kalluri, P. R., Jurafsky, D. & King, S. AI generates covertly racist decisions about people based on their dialect. Nature 633, 147–154 (2024).
Richard, A. B., Lelandais, M., Reilly, K. T. & Jacquin-Courtois, S. Linguistic markers of subtle cognitive impairment in connected speech: a systematic review. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 67, 4714–4733 (2024).
Eyigoz, E., Mathur, S., Santamaria, M., Cecchi, G. & Naylor, M. Linguistic markers predict onset of Alzheimer’s disease. EClinicalMedicine 28, 100583 (2020).
Roark, B., Mitchell, M., Hosom, J.-P., Hollingshead, K. & Kaye, J. Spoken language derived measures for detecting mild cognitive impairment. IEEE Trans. Audio Speech Lang. Process. 19, 2081–2090 (2011).
Trifu, R. N. et al. Linguistic markers for major depressive disorder: a cross-sectional study using an automated procedure. Front. Psychol. 15, 1355734 (2024).
Weerasinghe, J., Morales, K. & Greenstadt, R. "Because… i was told… so much”: linguistic indicators of mental health status on Twitter. Proc. Priv. Enhanc. Technol. 4, 152–171 (2019).
Whorf, B. L. Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (MIT Press, 2012).
Eckert, P. Three waves of variation study: the emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 41, 87–100 (2012).
Hofstede, G. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations 2nd edn (Sage, 2001).
OpenAI. Introducing ChatGPT https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt (2022).
Gemini Team et al. Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.11805 (2023).
Bailyn, E. ChatGPT Usage Statistics: March 2026 https://firstpagesage.com/seo-blog/chatgpt-usage-statistics/ (FirstPageSage, 2026).
Nearly 1 in 3 College Students Have Used ChatGPT on Written Assignments https://www.intelligent.com/nearly-1-in-3-college-students-have-used-chatgpt-on-written-assignments/ (Intelligent, 2024).
McClain, C. Americans’ Use of ChatGPT is Ticking Up, But Few Trust Its Election Information https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/26/americans-use-of-chatgpt-is-ticking-up-but-few-trust-its-election-information/ (Pew Research Center, 2024).
Handa, K. et al. Which economic tasks are performed with AI? Evidence from millions of Claude conversations. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.04761 (2025).
Mizrahi, M. et al. State of what art? A call for multi-prompt LLM evaluation. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguist. 12, 933–949 (2024).
Serapio-García, G. et al. A psychometric framework for evaluating and shaping personality traits in large language models. Nat. Mach. Intell. 7, 1954–1968 (2025).
Ghosh, S. et al. A closer look at the limitations of instruction tuning. In Proc. 41st International Conference on Machine Learning 624 (JMLR, 2024).
Santurkar, S. et al. Whose opinions do language models reflect? In International Conference on Machine Learning 29971–30004 (JMLR, 2023).
Ireland, M.E. & Mehl, M. R. in The Oxford Handbook of Language and Social Psychology (ed. Holtgraves, T. M.) 201–218 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199838639.013.034 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2014).
Corona Hernández, H. et al. Natural language processing markers for psychosis and other psychiatric disorders: emerging themes and research agenda from a cross-linguistic workshop. Schizophr. Bull. 49, 86–92 (2023).
Rude, S., Gortner, E.-M. & Pennebaker, J. Language use of depressed and depression-vulnerable college students. Cogn. Emot. 18, 1121–1133 (2004).
Coppersmith, G., Leary, R., Crutchley, P. & Fine, A. Natural language processing of social media as screening for suicide risk. Biomed. Inform. Insights 10, 1178222618792860 (2018).
Matz, S. C. & Netzer, O. Using big data as a window into consumers’ psychology. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 18, 7–12 (2017).
Winter, S., Maslowska, E. & Vos, A. L. The effects of trait-based personalization in social media advertising. Comput. Hum. Behav. 114, 106525 (2021).
Sundar, S. S. & Marathe, S. S. Personalization versus customization: the importance of agency, privacy, and power usage. Hum. Commun. Res. 36, 298–322 (2010).
Ryan, M. J., Held, W. & Yang, D. Unintended impacts of LLM alignment on global representation. In Proc. 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics1, 16121–16140 (2024).
Navigli, R., Conia, S. & Ross, B. Biases in large language models: origins, inventory, and discussion. ACMJ. Data Inf. Qual. 15, 1–21 (2023).
Atari, M., Xue, M. J., Park, P. S., Blasi, D. & Henrich, J. Which humans? Preprint at PsyArXiv https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5b26t (2023).
Wang, A., Morgenstern, J. & Dickerson, J. P. Large language models that replace human participants can harmfully misportray and flatten identity groups. Nat. Mach. Intell. 7, 400–411 (2025).
Rozado, D. The political preferences of LLMs. PLoS ONE 19, 0306621 (2024).
Pan, K. & Zeng, Y. Do LLMs possess a personality? Making the MBTI test an amazing evaluation for large language models. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2307.16180 (2023).
Abdurahman, S. et al. Perils and opportunities in using large language models in psychological research. PNAS Nexus 3, 245 (2024).
Kobak, D., González-Márquez, R., Horvát, E. -Á & Lause, J. Delving into LLM-assisted writing in biomedical publications through excess vocabulary. Sci. Adv. 11, 3813 (2025).
Liang, W. et al. Quantifying large language model usage in scientific papers. Nat. Hum. Behav. 9, 2599–2609 (2025).
Liang, W. et al. The widespread adoption of large language model-assisted writing across society. Patterns 6, 101366 (2025).
Bao, T., Zhao, Y., Mao, J. & Zhang, C. Examining linguistic shifts in academic writing before and after the launch of chatGPT: a study on preprint papers. Scientometrics 130, 3597–3627 (2025).
Guo, Y., Shang, G., Vazirgiannis, M. & Clavel, C. The curious decline of linguistic diversity: training language models on synthetic text. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2024 3589–3604 (ACL, 2024).
Muñoz-Ortiz, A., Gómez-Rodríguez, C. & Vilares, D. Contrasting linguistic patterns in human and LLM-generated news text. Artif. Intell. Rev. 57, 265 (2024).
Xu, W., Jojic, N., Rao, S., Brockett, C. & Dolan, B. Echoes in AI: quantifying lack of plot diversity in LLM outputs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 122, 2504966122 (2025).
Padmakumar, V. & He, H. Does writing with language models reduce content diversity? In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/forum?id=Feiz5HtCD0
Doshi, A. R. & Hauser, O. P. Generative AI enhances individual creativity but reduces the collective diversity of novel content. Sci. Adv. 10, 5290 (2024).
Anderson, B. R., Shah, J. H. & Kreminski, M. Homogenization effects of large language models on human creative ideation. In Proc. 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition 413–425 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2024).
Agarwal, D., Naaman, M. & Vashistha, A. AI suggestions homogenize writing toward western styles and diminish cultural nuances. In Proc. 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 1–21 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2025).
Moon, K., Green, A. E. & Kushlev, K. Homogenizing effect of large language models (LLMs) on creative diversity: an empirical comparison of human and chatGPT writing. Comput. Hum. Behav. Artif. Hum. 6, 100207 (2025).
Alvero, A. et al. Large language models, social demography, and hegemony: comparing authorship in human and synthetic text. J. Big Data 11, 138 (2024).
Zhang, S., Xu, J. & Alvero, A. Generative AI meets open-ended survey responses: research participant use of AI and homogenization. Sociol. Methods Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241251327130 (2025).
Lee, J., Alvero, A., Joachims, T. & Kizilcec, R. Poor alignment and steerability of large language models: evidence from college admission essays. In Proc. Workshop on Social Simulation with LLMs at COLM (2025).
Hans, A. et al. Spotting LLMs with binoculars: zero-shot detection of machine-generated text. In Proc. 41st International Conference on Machine Learning 698 (JMLR, 2024).
Tufts, B., Zhao, X. & Li, L. A practical examination of AI-generated text detectors for large language models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2025 (eds Chiruzzo, L. et al.) 4839–4856 https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.findings-naacl.271 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2025).
Dugan, L. et al. Raid: a shared benchmark for robust evaluation of machine-generated text detectors. In Proc. 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics1, 12463–12492 (ACL, 2024).
Buchert, J.-M. The 6 Best AI Detectors Based on Objective Studies and Usage https://intellectualead.com/best-ai-detectors-guide/ (Intellectual Lead, 2025).
Singer, J. D., Willett, J. B. Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis: Modeling Change and Event Occurrence (Oxford Univ, 2003).
Linden, A. Conducting interrupted time-series analysis for single- and multiple-group comparisons. Stata J. 15, 480–500 (2015).
Bell, D., Kay, J. & Malley, J. A non-parametric approach to non-linear causality testing. Econ. Lett. 51, 7–18 (1996).
Dubey, A. et al. The llama 3 herd of models. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.21783 (2024).
Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D. & Graepel, T. Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 5802–5805 (2013).
Tufekci, Z. Engineering the public: big data, surveillance and computational politics. First Monday https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i7.4901 (2014).
Garg, N., Schiebinger, L., Jurafsky, D. & Zou, J. Word embeddings quantify 100 years of gender and ethnic stereotypes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 3635–3644 (2018).
Kennedy, B., Ashokkumar, A., Boyd, R. L. & Dehghani, M. in Handbook of Language Analysis in Psychology (eds Dehghani, M. & Boyd, R. L.) 3–62 (Guilford Publications, 2022).
Hirsh, J. B. & Peterson, J. B. Personality and language use in self-narratives. J. Res. Pers. 43, 524–527 (2009).
Mehl, M. R., Gosling, S. D. & Pennebaker, J. W. Personality in its natural habitat: manifestations and implicit folk theories of personality in daily life. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90, 862–877 (2006).
Boyd, R. L., Ashokkumar, A., Seraj, S. & Pennebaker, J. W. The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC-22 Technical report https://www.liwc.app (Univ. Texas at Austin, 2022).
Frimer, J. A., Boghrati, R., Haidt, J., Graham, J. & Dehgani, M. Moral Foundations Dictionary for Linguistic Analyses 2.0 (Provalis Research, 2019).
Ishikawa, Y. Gender differences in vocabulary use in essay writing by university students. ProcediaSoc. Behav. Sci. 192, 593–600 (2015).
Chen, J., Qiu, L. & Ho, M.-H. R. A meta-analysis of linguistic markers of extraversion: positive emotion and social process words. J. Res. Pers. 89, 104035 (2020).
Li, L. & Tomasello, M. On the moral functions of language. Soc. Cogn. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2021.39.1.99 (2021).
Nguyen, D., Doğruöz, A. S., Rosé, C. P. & De Jong, F. Computational sociolinguistics: a survey. Comput. Linguist. 42, 537–593 (2016).
Tausczik, Y. R. & Pennebaker, J. W. The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. J. Lang. Soc. Psychol. 29, 24–54 (2010).
Evans, N. & Levinson, S. C. The myth of language universals: language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behav. Brain Sci. 32, 429–448 (2009).
arXiv.org submitters. arXiv dataset. kaggle https://doi.org/10.34740/KAGGLE/DSV/7548853 (2024).
Verma, V., Fleisig, E., Tomlin, N. & Klein, D. Ghostbuster: detecting text ghostwritten by large language models. In Proc. 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies1 (eds Duh, K. et al.) 1702–1717 https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.95 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2024).
Adam, G. A. et al. GPTZero: robust detection of LLM-generated texts. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2602.13042 (2026).
Zhan, H., He, X., Xu, Q., Wu, Y. & Stenetorp, P. G3detector: general GPT-generated text detector. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.12680 (2023).
Zellers, R. et al. Defending against neural fake news. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 32, 9051–9062 (2019).
SIMPSON, E. H. Measurement of diversity. Nature 163, 688 (1949).
Shannon, C. E. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 27, 379–423 (1948).
Gibson, E. Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68, 1–76 (1998).
Johnson, W. Studies in language behavior: a program of research. Psychol. Monogr. 56, 1–15 (1944).
Mardaga, H. Hapax legomena: a neglected field in biblical studies. Curr. Biblic. Res. 10, 264–274 (2012).
Cronbach, L. J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16, 297–334 (1951).
West, S. G., Finch, J. F. & Curran, P. J. in Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications (ed. Hoyle, R. H.) 56–75 (Sage, 1995).
Curran, P. J., West, S. G. & Finch, J. F. The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychol. Methods 1, 16–29 (1996).
Kilian, L. New introduction to multiple time series analysis, by Helmut Lütkepohl, Springer, 2005. Econ. Theory 22, 961–967 (2006).
Ivanov, V. & Kilian, L. A practitioner’s guide to lag order selection for VAR impulse response analysis. Stud. Nonlinear Dyn. Econom.9, 1 (2005).
Bruns, S. B. & Stern, D. I. Lag length selection and p-hacking in Granger causality testing: prevalence and performance of meta-regression models. Empir. Econ. 56, 797–830 (2019).
Dickey, D. A. & Fuller, W. A. Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 74, 427–431 (1979).
Box, G. E., Jenkins, G. M., Reinsel, G. C. & Ljung, G. M. Time Series Analysis: Forecasting and Control (John Wiley & Sons, 2015).
Wood, S. N. Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R 2nd edn https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315370279 (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2017).
Hastie, T. & Tibshirani, R. Generalized additive models. Stat. Sci. 1, 297–310 (1986).
Wieling, M. Analyzing dynamic phonetic data using generalized additive mixed modeling: a tutorial focusing on articulatory differences between l1 and l2 speakers of English. J. Phon. 70, 86–116 (2018).
Greene, R. et al. New and Improved Embedding Model https://openai.com/index/new-and-improved-embedding-model (OpenAI, 2024).
Conneau, A. & Kiela, D. SentEval: an evaluation toolkit for universal sentence representations. In Proc. Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018) (eds Calzolari, N. et al.) https://aclanthology.org/L18-1269/ (European Language Resources Association (ELRA), 2018).
Gilardi, F., Alizadeh, M. & Kubli, M. ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120, 2305016120 (2023).
Alizadeh, M. et al. Open-source LLMs for text annotation: a practical guide for model setting and fine-tuning. J. Comput. Soc. Sci. 8, 17 (2025).
Gwet, K. L. Computing inter-rater reliability and its variance in the presence of high agreement. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 61, 29–48 (2008).
Levene, H. in Contributions to Probability and Statistics (ed. Olkin, I.) 278–292 (Stanford Univ. Press, 1960).
Gentzkow, M., Shapiro, J. M. & Taddy, M. Congressional Record for the 43rd–114th Congresses: Parsed Speeches and Phrase Counts https://data.stanford.edu/congress_text (Stanford Libraries, 2018).
Silver, N. & Mehta, D. Both Republicans and Democrats Have an Age Problem https://web.archive.org/web/20221216043420/; https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/both-republicans-and-democrats-have-an-age-problem/ (2014).
Abu Raya, M. et al. The reciprocal relationship between openness and creativity: from neurobiology to multicultural environments. Front. Neurol. 14, 1235348 (2023).
Goldberg, L. R. in Personality and Personality Disorders 34–47 (Routledge, 2013).
Goldberg, L. Standard Markers of the Big-five Structure (Oregon Research Institute, 1990).
Pennebaker, J. W. & King, L. A. Linguistic styles: language use as an individual difference. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77, 1296–1312 (1999).
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M. & Kentle, R. L. The Big Five Inventory –versions 4a and 54 Technical report (Univ. California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research, 1991).
Celli, F., Pianesi, F., Stillwell, D. & Kosinski, M. Workshop on computational personality recognition: shared task. Proc. Int. AAAI Conf. Web Soc. Media 7, 2–5 (2013).
Davis, M. H. A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Cat. Sel. Doc. Psychol. 10, 85 (1980).
Omitaomu, D. et al. Empathic conversations: a multi-level dataset of contextualized conversations. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2205.12698 (2022).
Barriere, V., Sedoc, J., Tafreshi, S. & Giorgi, S. Findings of WASSA 2023 shared task on empathy, emotion and personality detection in conversation and reactions to news articles. In Proc. 13th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment, and Social Media Analysis 511–525 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2023).
Graham, J. et al. Chapter two - moral foundations theory: the pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 47, 55–130 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00002-4 (2013).
Haidt, J. & Joseph, C. Intuitive ethics: how innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus 133, 55–66 (2004).
Atari, M. et al. Morality beyond the weird: how the nomological network of morality varies across cultures. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 125, 1157–1188 (2023).
Graham, J. et al. Mapping the moral domain. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101, 366–385 (2011).
Beltagy, I., Peters, M. E. & Cohan, A. Longformer: the long-document transformer. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2004.05150 (2020).
Shatz, I. Assumption-checking rather than (just) testing: the importance of visualization and effect size in statistical diagnostics. Behav. Res. Methods 56, 826–845 (2024).
Knief, U. & Forstmeier, W. Violating the normality assumption may be the lesser of two evils. Behav. Res. Methods 53, 2576–2590 (2021).
Bonferroni, C. Teoria statistica delle classi e calcolo delle probabilita. Pubbl. R. Inst. Super. Sci. Econ. Commerc. Firenze 8, 3–62 (1936).
Havlicek, L. L. & Peterson, N. L. Robustness of the Pearson correlation against violations of assumptions. Percept. Mot. Skills 43, 1319–1334 (1976).
Wilcox, R. R. Modern insights about Pearson’s correlation and least squares regression. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 9, 195–205 (2001).
Delacre, M., Lakens, D. & Leys, C. Why psychologists should by default use Welch’s t-test instead of Student’s t-test. Int. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 30, 92–101 (2017).
Mohammad, S. M. & Turney, P. D. Crowdsourcing a word–emotion association lexicon. Comput. Intell. 29, 436–465 (2013).
Mohammad, S. & Turney, P. Emotions evoked by common words and phrases: using Mechanical Turk to create an emotion lexicon. In Proc. NAACL HLT 2010 Workshop on Computational Approaches to Analysis and Generation of Emotion in Text 26–34 https://aclanthology.org/W10-0204 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2010).
Sedoc, J., Buechel, S., Nachmany, Y., Buffone, A. & Ungar, L. Learning word ratings for empathy and distress from document-level user responses. In Proc. Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (eds Calzolari, N. et al.) 1664–1673 https://aclanthology.org/2020.lrec-1.206/ (European Language Resources Association, 2020).
Baumgartner, J., Zannettou, S., Keegan, B., Squire, M. & Blackburn, J. The pushshift reddit dataset. In Proc. International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 14, 830–839 (2020).
Sourati, Z. Code for "The shrinking landscape of linguistic diversity in the age of large language models". Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21633457 (2026).
Cohen, J. A power primer. Psychol. Bull. 112, 155–159 (1992).