Refining Word Embeddings for Sentiment Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Word embeddings that can capture semantic and syntactic information from contexts have been extensively used for various natural language processing tasks. However, existing methods for learning contextbased word embeddings typically fail to capture sufficient sentiment information. This may result in words with similar vector representations having an opposite sentiment polarity (e.g., good and bad), thus degrading sentiment analysis performance. Therefore, this study proposes a word vector refinement model that can be applied to any pre-trained word vectors (e.g., Word2vec and GloVe). The refinement model is based on adjusting the vector representations of words such that they can be closer to both semantically and sentimentally similar words and further away from sentimentally dissimilar words. Experimental results show that the proposed method can improve conventional word embeddings and outperform previously proposed sentiment embeddings for both binary and fine-grained classification on Stanford Sentiment Treebank (SST).
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it