Extracting, Ranking, and Evaluating Quality Features of Web Services through User Review Sentiment Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quality of Service (QoS) has become a standard way of evaluating web services and selecting the one that suites user interests the best. Traditional methods adopt a fixed set of QoS parameters and typical ones include response time, fee, and availability. There currently lacks an effective way of identifying quality features that users are actually interested in when choosing a service. Meanwhile, the traditional way of collecting QoS values relies on either public information released by service providers or test results from repeatedly invoking a service. Therefore, the values can be heavily affected by authenticity of the provider offered information or the quality/configuration of the test code/environment. As a result, existing QoS evaluation methods are not applicable to subject features, such as usability and affordability, where the values depend on user personal judgement. In this paper, we propose a novel approach to extracting domain-related QoS features, ranking those features based on their interestingness, evaluating the value of these features through sentiment analysis on user reviews. More specifically, we leverage natural language processing techniques and machine learning approaches to identify top QoS features that users are interested in and simultaneously learn their sentiment orientation towards those features. We model the problem as sentiment classification, where relevant terms in a review are modeled as features that determine whether a review is positive or negative. Logistic regression is used so that the impact of these terms are learned simultaneously when the classifier is learned through a supervised learning process. The nontrivial terms are selected as the candidate QoS featured. A comprehensive experiment has been conducted on a real-world dataset and the result demonstrates the effectiveness of our approach.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".