Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aspect-based opinion mining from online reviews has attracted a lot of attention recently. Given a set of reviews, the main task of aspect-based opinion mining is to extract major aspects of the items and to infer the latent aspect ratings from each review. However, users may have different preferences which might lead to different opinions on the same aspect of an item. Even if fine-grained aspect rating analysis is provided for each review, it is still difficult for a user to judge whether a specific aspect of an item meets his own expectation. In this paper, we study the problem of estimating personalized sentiment polarities on different aspects of the items. We propose a unified probabilistic model called Factorized Latent Aspect ModEl (FLAME), which combines the advantages of collaborative filtering and aspect based opinion mining. FLAME learns users' personalized preferences on different aspects from their past reviews, and predicts users' aspect ratings on new items by collective intelligence. Experiments on two online review datasets show that FLAME outperforms state-of-the-art methods on the tasks of aspect identification and aspect rating prediction.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".