Data Mining Algorithms for a Feature-Based Customer Review Process Model with Engineering Informatics Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The data generated from online communication acts as potential gold mines for discovering knowledge for end users. Large amount of data is also generated in the form of web documents, emails, blogs, and feedback, etc. Text analytics and opinion mining are used to extract human thoughts and perceptions from unstructured texts. This paper proposes a method that focuses on analysing different classification and clustering algorithms aimed at extracting and consolidating opinions of customers from social media sites like Facebook , Twitter and through surveys, at multiple levels of granularity to monitor and measure customer satisfaction. This is an automated approach, in which algorithms aid in the process of knowledge assimilation identification and the analytics. Domain experts ratify the knowledge base and provide training data sets for the system to intuitively gather more instances for ratification. The system identifies opinion expressions as phrases containing opinion words, opinionated features and also opinion modifiers. These expressions are categorized as positive, negative or neutral. Opinion expressions are identified and categorized using localized linguistic techniques. Opinions can be congregated at any desired level of specificity i.e. feature level or product level, user level or service level, etc. It has been found that J48 classification algorithm and simple k-means clustering algorithm are most suitable for restaurant 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".