MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2984263896 · doi:10.32877/bt.v2i1.92

Extraction Opinion of Social Media in Higher Education Using Sentiment Analysis

2019· article· en· W2984263896 on OpenAlex
Thomas Edison Tarigan, Robby Cokro Buwono, Sri Redjeki

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuebit-Tech · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSentiment analysisSocial mediaPolitical scienceAdvertisingMedia studiesComputer scienceSociologyArtificial intelligenceBusinessLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this research is to extract social media Twitter opinion on a tertiary institution using sentiment analysis. The results of sentiment analysis will provide input to universities as a form of evaluation of management performance in managing institutions. Sentiment analysis generated using the Naïve Bayes Classifier method which is classified into 4 classes: positive, normal, negative and unknown. This study uses 1000 data tweets used for training data needs. The data is classified manually to determine the sentiment of the tweet. Then 20 tweet data is used for testing. The results of this study produce a system that can classify sentiments automatically with 75% test results for sentiment, some obstacles in processing real-time tweets such as duplicate tweets (spam tweets), Indonesian structures that are quite complex and diverse.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.279 · 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