MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061074565 · doi:10.1109/iciinfs.2013.6732014

A term weighting method for identifying emotions from text content

2013· article· en· W2061074565 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jenomi De Silva, Prasanna S. Haddela

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicText and Document Classification Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsWeightingComputer sciencetf–idfClassifier (UML)Term (time)Support vector machineVector space modelArtificial intelligenceThe InternetInformation retrievalNatural language processingFeature vectorSocial mediaOracleMachine learningWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the inception of the concept of social networking, communication patterns have shifted drastically with the unmitigated trend in socializing over the Internet, especially when people began connecting via mobile devices. Nowadays people tend to use these modern communication systems to share their emotions with each other. Human emotions play a vital role in human relationships and people share their emotions through facial expressions, gestures, speech and text messages. However, text messaging is the most common and widely accepted method to exchange information among peers through the Internet and mobile networks. In comparison to other methods, identifying emotions from text messages is rather difficult for the recipient. Therefore, the need of automating the emotion recognition from textual content has increased. Utilization of text classification techniques can be considered as the most common approach of identifying emotions from textual content. Prior to applying a text classifier, the textual data should be transformed into a data structure that the classifier understands by conforming to a document representation model and term weighting method. For this research Vector Space Model (VSM) is used as the document representation model. This paper proposes an extension to the Term Frequency - Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF) weighting method to increase classification accuracy and explains experiments conducted to discover the best term weighting method in vector space to be used in feature (text term) extraction from Aman's emotion text corpus. The text classification is done using Oracle's ODM SVM tool and LibSVM tool.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicText and Document Classification TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207