Understanding moral values in social media text offers insight into moral judgement formation, and supervised NLP models trained on crowdsourced data have achieved strong classification performance. However, most approaches simplify the problem by aggregating multiple annotators' labels into a single "ground truth", overlooking the inherent subjectivity of the task.
arXiv:2601.06631v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Building NLP systems for subjective tasks requires one to ensure their alignment to contrasting human values. We propose the MultiCalibrated Subjec...
By Mohammed Fayiz Parappan, Ricardo Henao
The paper introduces CHARM, a lightweight fine‑tuned language model framework for detecting moral foundations in text. CHARM combines MAC cross‑attention, rationale alignment, and hate‑speech modulation to operationalize distinct psychological constructs, achieving up to 15.3% higher AUC in‑domain and outperforming supervised baselines on all out‑of‑domain datasets. The authors demonstrate CHARM’s scalability by applying it to large‑scale COVID‑19 Twitter data, revealing a strong link between moral value alignment and online endorsement behavior.
By Huixiang Fu, Marian-Andrei Rizoiu
arXiv:2605. 22660v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Moral language is subtle and culturally variable, making it difficult to translate faithfully across languages.
By Maciej Skorski
arXiv:2605. 22641v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Detecting Schwartz values in political text is difficult because implicit cues often depend on surrounding arguments and fine-grained distinctions between neighboring values.
By V\'ictor Yeste, Paolo Rosso
The paper introduces C$^{3}$T, a Counterfactual Causal Conversation Transformer that models sentiment shifts in social‑media conversation trees by treating discourse moves such as denial, evidence, and toxicity as interventions. It adds a causal sentiment reasoning layer, CaSiRe, to public rumor datasets, providing sentiment, shift, intervention, and causal‑source annotations. Experiments show that C$^{3}$T outperforms text‑only, graph‑based, and temporal baselines in predicting sentiment and attribution, revealing that denials and evidence reduce negativity while toxicity increases it.