Efficient Opinion Summarization on Comments with Online-LDA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Customer reviews and comments on web pages are important information n our daily life. For example, we prefer to choose a hotel with positive comments rom previous customers. As the huge amounts of such information demonstrate the haracteristics of big data, it places heavy burdens on the assimilation of the customercontributed pinions. To overcoming this problem, we study an efficient opinion ummarization approach for a set of massive user reviews and comments associated ith an online resource, to summarize the opinions into two categories, i.e., positive nd negative. In this paper, we proposed a framework including: (1) overcoming the ig data problem of online comments using the efficient online-LDA approach; (2) electing meaningful topics from the imbalanced data; (3) summarizing the opinion f comments with high precision and recall. This framework is different from much f the previous work in that the topics are pre-defined and selected the topics for etter opinion summarization. To evaluate the proposed framework, we perform the xperiments on a dataset of hotel reviews for the variety of topics contained. The esults show that our framework can gain a significant performance improvement on pinion summarization.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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.
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".