MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789753827 · doi:10.4018/ijeis.2018040105

Sentiment Recognition in Customer Reviews Using Deep Learning

2018· article· en· W2789753827 on OpenAlexaff
Vinay Jain, Shishir Kumar, Prabhat Mahanti

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Enterprise Information Systems · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep learningArtificial intelligenceSentiment analysisComputer scienceMachine learningArtificial neural networkSupport vector machineConvolutional neural networkNaive Bayes classifierNatural language processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep learning has become popular in all aspect related to human judgments. Most machine learning techniques work well which includes text classification, text sequence learning, sentiment analysis, question-answer engine, etc. This paper has been focused on two objectives, firstly is to study the applicability of deep neural networks strategies for extracting sentiment present in social media data and customer reviews with effective training solutions. The second objective is to design deep networks that can be trained with these weakly supervised strategies in order to predict meaningful inferences. This paper presents the concept and steps of using deep learning for extraction sentiments from customer reviews. The extraction pulls out the features from the customer reviews using deep learning popular methods including Convolution neural networks (CNN) and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) architectures. The comparison of the results with tradition text classification method such as Naive Bayes(NB) and Support Vector Machine(SVM) using two data sets IMDB reviews and Amazon customer reviews have been presented. This work mainly focused on investigating the merit of using deep models for sentiment analysis in customer reviews.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Enterprise Information SystemsSame topicSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningFrench-language works237,207