QER: a new feature selection method for sentiment analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sentiment analysis is about the classification of sentiments expressed in review documents. In order to improve the classification accuracy, feature selection methods are often used to rank features so that non-informative and noisy features with low ranks can be removed. In this study, we propose a new feature selection method, called query expansion ranking, which is based on query expansion term weighting methods from the field of information retrieval. We compare our proposed method with other widely used feature selection methods, including Chi square, information gain, document frequency difference, and optimal orthogonal centroid, using four classifiers: naïve Bayes multinomial, support vector machines, maximum entropy modelling, and decision trees. We test them on movie and multiple kinds of product reviews for both Turkish and English languages so that we can show their performances for different domains, languages, and classifiers. We observe that our proposed method achieves consistently better performance than other feature selection methods, and query expansion ranking, Chi square, information gain, document frequency difference methods tend to produce better results for both the English and Turkish reviews when tested using naïve Bayes multinomial classifier.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".