Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automatically detecting sentiment of product reviews, blogs, tweets, and SMS messages has attracted extensive interest from both the academia and industry. It has a number of applications, including: tracking sentiment towards products, movies, politicians, etc.; improving customer relation models; detecting happiness and well-being; and improving automatic dialogue systems. In this tutorial, we will describe how you can create a state-of-the-art sentiment analysis system, with a focus on social media posts.We begin with an introduction to sentiment analysis and its various forms: term level, message level, document level, and aspect level. We will describe how sentiment analysis systems are evaluated, especially through recent SemEval shared tasks: Sentiment Analysis of Twitter (SemEval-2013 Task 2, SemEval 2014-Task 9) and Aspect Based Sentiment Analysis (SemEval-2014 Task 4).We will give an overview of the best sentiment analysis systems at this point of time, including those that are conventional statistical systems as well as those using deep learning approaches. We will describe in detail the NRC-Canada systems, which were the overall best performing systems in all three SemEval competitions listed above. These are simple lexical- and sentiment-lexicon features based systems, which are relatively easy to re-implement.We will discuss features that had the most impact (those derived from sentiment lexicons and negation handling). We will present how large tweet-specific sentiment lexicons can be automatically generated and evaluated. We will also show how negation impacts sentiment differently depending on whether the scope of the negation is positive or negative. Finally, we will flesh out limitations of current approaches and promising future directions.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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".