SENTIMENT CLASSIFICATION of MOVIE REVIEWS USING CONTEXTUAL VALENCE SHIFTERS
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present two methods for determining the sentiment expressed by a movie review. The semantic orientation of a review can be positive, negative, or neutral. We examine the effect of valence shifters on classifying the reviews. We examine three types of valence shifters: negations, intensifiers, and diminishers. Negations are used to reverse the semantic polarity of a particular term, while intensifiers and diminishers are used to increase and decrease, respectively, the degree to which a term is positive or negative. The first method classifies reviews based on the number of positive and negative terms they contain. We use the General Inquirer to identify positive and negative terms, as well as negation terms, intensifiers, and diminishers. We also use positive and negative terms from other sources, including a dictionary of synonym differences and a very large Web corpus. To compute corpus‐based semantic orientation values of terms, we use their association scores with a small group of positive and negative terms. We show that extending the term‐counting method with contextual valence shifters improves the accuracy of the classification. The second method uses a Machine Learning algorithm, Support Vector Machines. We start with unigram features and then add bigrams that consist of a valence shifter and another word. The accuracy of classification is very high, and the valence shifter bigrams slightly improve it. The features that contribute to the high accuracy are the words in the lists of positive and negative terms. Previous work focused on either the term‐counting method or the Machine Learning method. We show that combining the two methods achieves better results than either method alone.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it