Mixed Feelings, Single Polarity

Emotion annotation is inherently subjective, yet most NLP pipelines still assume "gold" labels, typically produced by majority voting, and treat annotator variation as noise. In this paper, we present a multilabel emotion annotation case study and use it to examine how annotator behavior and aggregation choices affect both agreement estimates and downstream emotion classifiers. Rather than collapsing disagreement into a single label, we represent targets as soft vote-share labels (including an intensity-weighted variant) and evaluate models using both thresholded metrics (macro-/micro-F1) and probabilistic alignment (Bernoulli cross-entropy SoftBCE), alongside data-derived disagreement diagnostics. Across annotation regimes, we show that disagreement is structured and leaves measurable traces in model behavior: hard labels may maximize F1 metrics, while soft supervision yields predictions that better reflect empirical annotator variance and uncertainty. Our results provide practical guidance for designing, aggregating, and evaluating multilabel emotion datasets when multiple interpretations are plausible.

Stance detection is nearly always formulated as classifying text into Favor, Against, or Neutral. This convention was inherited from debate analysis and has been applied without modification to social media since SemEval-2016. However, attitudes toward complex targets are not unitary. A person can accept climate science while opposing carbon taxes, expressing support on one dimension and opposition on another. When annotators must compress such multi-dimensional attitudes into a single label, different annotators may weight different dimensions, producing disagreement that reflects different compression choices rather than confusion. We call this the projection problem. We conduct an annotation study across five targets from three stance benchmarks (SemEval-2016, P-Stance, COVID-19-Stance), with the same three annotators labeling all targets. For each target, annotators assign both a standard stance label and per-dimension judgments along target-specific dimensions discovered through bottom-up analysis, using the same number of categories for both. Across all fifteen target--dimension pairs, dimensional agreement consistently exceeds label agreement. The gap appears to scale with target complexity: modest for a single-entity target like Joe Biden (AC1: 0.87 vs. 0.95), but large for a multi-faceted policy target like school closures (AC1: 0.21 vs. 0.71).

Emoji are widely treated as compact affective tokens whose meaning is summarised by a single sentiment score. We argue that this picture is incomplete. From a corpus of 16{,}575 English tweets and a per-emoji metric we call stability delta (within-class minus between-class cosine similarity of sentence embeddings), we show that emojis used in tightly clustered topical contexts also exhibit more polarised crowd-sourced sentiment, not less. Validated against the Kralj Novak et al.\ (2015) sentiment lexicon, the central correlation is Spearman $ρ= +0.361$ (Holm $p = 0.015$, 95% bootstrap CI $[+0.10, +0.59]$); against the independent Ferré et al.\ (2025) Spanish 13-emotion ratings, $ρ= +0.509$ ($p = 0.0003$). The result survives permutation testing, BCa bootstrap, leave-one-out jackknife, partial correlation controlling for emoji frequency, and Holm correction across a four-test family. Topical coherence and affective dispersion are distinct dimensions of emoji meaning. As a downstream check we report leakage-free five-fold cross-validation results for sarcasm classification on the Emoji Sarcasm Dataset; all three baselines (a gated multimodal architecture, fine-tuned BERTweet features, and fine-tuned RoBERTa features) score above 0.97 macro F1, indicating the dataset has saturating emoji-label cues. We frame the classifier as supporting evidence rather than the contribution.