Lexicon-based sentiment analysis: Comparative evaluation of six sentiment lexicons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article introduces a new general-purpose sentiment lexicon called WKWSCI Sentiment Lexicon and compares it with five existing lexicons: Hu & Liu Opinion Lexicon, Multi-perspective Question Answering (MPQA) Subjectivity Lexicon, General Inquirer, National Research Council Canada (NRC) Word-Sentiment Association Lexicon and Semantic Orientation Calculator (SO-CAL) lexicon. The effectiveness of the sentiment lexicons for sentiment categorisation at the document level and sentence level was evaluated using an Amazon product review data set and a news headlines data set. WKWSCI, MPQA, Hu & Liu and SO-CAL lexicons are equally good for product review sentiment categorisation, obtaining accuracy rates of 75%–77% when appropriate weights are used for different categories of sentiment words. However, when a training corpus is not available, Hu & Liu obtained the best accuracy with a simple-minded approach of counting positive and negative words for both document-level and sentence-level sentiment categorisation. The WKWSCI lexicon obtained the best accuracy of 69% on the news headlines sentiment categorisation task, and the sentiment strength values obtained a Pearson correlation of 0.57 with human-assigned sentiment values. It is recommended that the Hu & Liu lexicon be used for product review texts and the WKWSCI lexicon for non-review texts.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".