Improving Sentiment Polarity Detection Through Target Identification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an opinionated long review, there may be several targets described by different potential terms. Traditional review-level techniques for Persian sentiment analysis addressed the problem using a one-method-fits-all solution in which the overall polarity of a review is calculated using all its opinionated words without considering their target. In this article, a new method is proposed, which first decomposes a long review into its constituent sentences and then detects the main target of each sentence. In the next step, five policies, including most occurring first (MOF), most general first (MGF), most specific first (MSF), first occurring first (FOF), and last occurring first (LOF), are proposed to come up with the main target of the review. Finally, using the part-of-speech (POS) tags, potential terms in the sentences are specified and a comprehensive sentiment lexicon is employed to compute the polarity of the sentences. In order to evaluate the proposed method, three data sets of user reviews about different topics, including digital equipment, hotels, and movies, are created as no previous study addressed the problem of target identification in the Persian language. The results of comparing the proposed method with a state-of-the-art lexicon-based method show that specifying the main targets of reviews can improve the performance of the systems about 17% and 12% in terms of accuracy and F1-measure. Moreover, the proposed method using the MGF policy achieves the best performance in finding the main target of reviews, while for finding the ultimate polarity of reviews, the MOF outperforms other policies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".