Sentiment Analysis on Twitter Data of World Cup Soccer Tournament Using Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the derived approach, an analysis is performed on Twitter data for World Cup soccer 2014 held in Brazil to detect the sentiment of the people throughout the world using machine learning techniques. By filtering and analyzing the data using natural language processing techniques, sentiment polarity was calculated based on the emotion words detected in the user tweets. The dataset is normalized to be used by machine learning algorithms and prepared using natural language processing techniques like word tokenization, stemming and lemmatization, part-of-speech (POS) tagger, name entity recognition (NER), and parser to extract emotions for the textual data from each tweet. This approach is implemented using Python programming language and Natural Language Toolkit (NLTK). A derived algorithm extracts emotional words using WordNet with its POS (part-of-speech) for the word in a sentence that has a meaning in the current context, and is assigned sentiment polarity using the SentiWordNet dictionary or using a lexicon-based method. The resultant polarity assigned is further analyzed using naïve Bayes, support vector machine (SVM), K-nearest neighbor (KNN), and random forest machine learning algorithms and visualized on the Weka platform. Naïve Bayes gives the best accuracy of 88.17% whereas random forest gives the best area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of 0.97.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".