Social Network Opinion and Posts Mining for Community Preference Discovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The popularity of posts, topics, and opinions on social media websites and the influence ability of users can be discovered by analyzing the responses of users (e.g., likes/dislikes, comments, ratings). Existing web opinion mining systems such as OpinionMiner is based on opinion text similarity scoring of users' review texts and product ratings to generate database table of features, functions and opinions mined through classification to identify arriving opinions as positive or negative on user-service networks or interest networks (e.g., Amazon.com). These systems are not directly applicable to user-user networks or friendship networks (e.g., Facebook.com) since they do not consider multiple posts on multiple products, users' relationships (such as influence), and diverse posts and comments. In this thesis, we propose a new influence network (IN) generation algorithm (Opinion Based IN:OBIN) through opinion mining of friendship networks (like Facebook.com). OBIN mines opinions using extended OpinionMiner that considers multiple posts and relationships (influences) between users. Approach used includes frequent pattern mining algorithm for determining community (positive or negative) preferences for a given product as input to standard influence maximization algorithms like CELF for target marketing. Experiments and evaluations show the effectiveness of OBIN over CELF in large-scale friendship networks. KEYWORDS Influence Analysis, Recommendation, Ranking, Sentiment Classification, Large Scale Network, Social Network, Opinion Mining, Text 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".