Bibliographic record
Abstract
"What other people think" has always been an important piece of information for most of us during the decision-making process. Today people tend to make their opinions available to other people via the Internet. As a result, the Web has become an excellent source of consumer opinions. There are now numerous Web resources containing such opinions, e.g., product reviews forums, discussion groups, and blogs. But, it is really difficult for a customer to read all of the reviews and make an informed decision on whether to purchase the product. It is also difficult for the manufacturer of the product to keep track and manage customer opinions. Also, focusing on just user ratings (stars) is not a sufficient source of information for a user or the manufacturer to make decisions. Therefore, mining online reviews (opinion mining) has emerged as an interesting new research direction. Extracting aspects and the corresponding ratings is an important challenge in opinion mining. An aspect is an attribute or component of a product, e.g. 'zoom' for a digital camera. A rating is an intended interpretation of the user satisfaction in terms of numerical values. Reviewers usually express the rating of an aspect by a set of sentiments, e.g. 'great zoom'. In this tutorial we cover opinion mining in online product reviews with the focus on aspect-based opinion mining. This problem is a key task in the area of opinion mining and has attracted a lot of researchers in the information retrieval community recently. Several opinion related information retrieval tasks can benefit from the results of aspect-based opinion mining and therefore it is considered as a fundamental problem. This tutorial covers not only general opinion mining and retrieval tasks, but also state-of-the-art methods, challenges, applications, and also future research directions of aspect-based opinion mining.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".