Current State of Text Sentiment Analysis from Opinion to Emotion Mining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sentiment analysis from text consists of extracting information about opinions, sentiments, and even emotions conveyed by writers towards topics of interest. It is often equated to opinion mining, but it should also encompass emotion mining. Opinion mining involves the use of natural language processing and machine learning to determine the attitude of a writer towards a subject. Emotion mining is also using similar technologies but is concerned with detecting and classifying writers emotions toward events or topics. Textual emotion-mining methods have various applications, including gaining information about customer satisfaction, helping in selecting teaching materials in e-learning, recommending products based on users emotions, and even predicting mental-health disorders. In surveys on sentiment analysis, which are often old or incomplete, the strong link between opinion mining and emotion mining is understated. This motivates the need for a different and new perspective on the literature on sentiment analysis, with a focus on emotion mining. We present the state-of-the-art methods and propose the following contributions: (1) a taxonomy of sentiment analysis; (2) a survey on polarity classification methods and resources, especially those related to emotion mining; (3) a complete survey on emotion theories and emotion-mining research; and (4) some useful resources, including lexicons and datasets.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
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".