Researcher profile

Maria Barrett

Maria Barrett contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Analysing Differences in Persuasive Language in LLM-Generated Text: Uncovering Stereotypical Gender Patterns

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for everyday communication tasks, including drafting interpersonal messages intended to influence and persuade. Prior work has shown that LLMs can successfully persuade humans and amplify persuasive language. It is therefore essential to understand how user instructions affect the generation of persuasive language, and to understand whether the generated persuasive language differs, for example, when targeting different groups. In this work, we propose a framework for evaluating how persuasive language generation is affected by recipient gender, sender intent, or output language. We evaluate 13 LLMs and 16 languages using pairwise prompt instructions. We evaluate model responses on 19 categories of persuasive language using an LLM-as-judge setup grounded in social psychology and communication science. Our results reveal significant gender differences in the persuasive language generated across all models. These patterns reflect biases consistent with gender-stereotypical linguistic tendencies documented in social psychology and sociolinguistics.

preprint2022arXiv

The Copenhagen Corpus of Eye Tracking Recordings from Natural Reading of Danish Texts

Eye movement recordings from reading are one of the richest signals of human language processing. Corpora of eye movements during reading of contextualized running text is a way of making such records available for natural language processing purposes. Such corpora already exist in some languages. We present CopCo, the Copenhagen Corpus of eye tracking recordings from natural reading of Danish texts. It is the first eye tracking corpus of its kind for the Danish language. CopCo includes 1,832 sentences with 34,897 tokens of Danish text extracted from a collection of speech manuscripts. This first release of the corpus contains eye tracking data from 22 participants. It will be extended continuously with more participants and texts from other genres. We assess the data quality of the recorded eye movements and find that the extracted features are in line with related research. The dataset available here: https://osf.io/ud8s5/.

preprint2020arXiv

The Sensitivity of Language Models and Humans to Winograd Schema Perturbations

Large-scale pretrained language models are the major driving force behind recent improvements in performance on the Winograd Schema Challenge, a widely employed test of common sense reasoning ability. We show, however, with a new diagnostic dataset, that these models are sensitive to linguistic perturbations of the Winograd examples that minimally affect human understanding. Our results highlight interesting differences between humans and language models: language models are more sensitive to number or gender alternations and synonym replacements than humans, and humans are more stable and consistent in their predictions, maintain a much higher absolute performance, and perform better on non-associative instances than associative ones. Overall, humans are correct more often than out-of-the-box models, and the models are sometimes right for the wrong reasons. Finally, we show that fine-tuning on a large, task-specific dataset can offer a solution to these issues.