Negation detection for sentiment analysis: A case study in Spanish
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Accurate negation identification is one of the most important tasks in the context of sentiment analysis. In order to correctly interpret the sentiment value of a particular expression, we need to identify whether it is in the scope of negation. While much of the work on negation detection has focused on English, we have seen recent developments that provide accurate identification of negation in other languages. In this paper, we provide an overview of negation detection systems and describe an implementation of a Spanish system for negation cue detection and scope identification. We apply this system to the sentiment analysis task, confirming also for Spanish that improvements can be gained from accurate negation detection. The paper contributes an implementation of negation detection for sentiment analysis in Spanish and a detailed error analysis. This is the first work in Spanish in which a machine learning negation processing system is applied to the sentiment analysis task. Existing methods have used negation rules that have not been assessed, perhaps because the first Spanish corpus annotated with negation for sentiment analysis has only recently become available.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it