Automatic Detection of Moral Values in Music Lyrics
Vjosa Preniqi, Iacopo Ghinassi, Julia Ive, Kyriaki Kalimeri, Charalampos Saitis
Overview of This Work
Objective: Detecting morality rapidly from lyrics for deeper understanding of our music-listening behaviours.
Methods: Use an LLM to generate synthetic lyrics for fine-tuning a moral classifier.
Evaluation: Use a small human-annotated lyrics dataset as ground truth.
Impact: Supports annotation-free morality learning in lyrics, relevant for creative industries.
Moral Foundations Theory (Haidt and Graham, 2004)
Care/Harm:
Involves concerns of others suffering and includes virtues like empathy and compassion.
Fairness/Cheating
Focuses on issues of unfair treatment, inequality, and justice.
Loyalty/Betrayal
Pertains to group obligations such as loyalty and the vigilance against betrayal.
Authority/Subversion:
Centres on social order and hierarchical responsibilities, obedience and respect.
Purity/Degradation
Relates to physical and spiritual sanctity, including virtues like chastity and self-control.
Can We Predict MFT Values in Lyrics?
Main Challenges:
Insights from social media:
Proposed Solution
MFT Prediction Results: F1 Scores
| F1 Weighted | F1 Binary | ||||||
| MoralBERT | GPT-4 | BERT SL | MoralBERT SL | MoralBERT | GPT-4 | BERT SL | MoralBERT SL |
Care | .80 ± .03 | .68 ± .03 | .81 ± .03 | .83 ± .03 | .68 ± .05 | .64 ± .04 | .68 ± .05 | .75 ± .04 |
Harm | .68 ± .03 | .75 ± .03 | .71 ± .03 | .70 ± .03 | .62 ± .05 | .71 ± .04 | .63 ± .05 | .69 ± .04 |
Fairness | .55 ± .03 | .73 ± .03 | .73 ± .03 | .74 ± .03 | .30 ± .05 | .39 ± .06 | .41 ± .06 | .38 ± .06 |
Cheating | .84 ± .03 | .80 ± .03 | .86 ± .02 | .69 ± .03 | .27 ± .09 | .16 ± .07 | .52 ± .08 | .32 ± .06 |
Loyalty | .69 ± .03 | .67 ± .03 | .77 ± .04 | .79 ± .04 | .38 ± .06 | .34 ± .06 | .21 ± .08 | .27 ± .09 |
Betrayal | .81 ± .02 | .72 ± .03 | .89 ± .02 | .84 ± .02 | .34 ± .07 | .31 ± .06 | .40 ± .11 | .37 ± .08 |
Authority | .77 ± .03 | .75 ± .03 | .77 ± .03 | .84 ± .03 | .45 ± .06 | .42 ± .06 | .35 ± .07 | .39 ± .09 |
Subversion | .80 ± .03 | .72 ± .03 | .80 ± .03 | .71 ± .03 | .44 ± .07 | .39 ± .06 | .40 ± .07 | .43 ± .06 |
Purity | .77 ± .03 | .86 ± .02 | .89 ± .02 | .90 ± .02 | .41 ± .06 | .56 ± .07 | .55 ± .08 | .63 ± .08 |
Degradation | .74 ± .03 | .81 ± .03 | .81 ± .03 | .86 ± .03 | .34 ± .06 | .40 ± .07 | .30 ± .07 | .32 ± .10 |
Average | .75 ± .03 | .75 ± .03 | .80 ± .03 | .80 ± .03 | .42 ± .06 | .43 ± .06 | .45 ± .07 | .46 ± .07 |
MFT Prediction Results: Precision Scores
Summary
Main Takeaways:
Implications:
Future Research
Thank You!
Preprint
Web App
v.preniqi@qmul.ac.uk