MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3105333265 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1906.02331

OutdoorSent: Sentiment Analysis of Urban Outdoor Images by Using Semantic and Deep Features

2019· article· en· W3105333265 on OpenAlexaff
Wyverson Bonasoli de Oliveira, Leyza Baldo Dorini, Rodrigo Minetto, Thiago H. Silva

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSentiment analysisGeneralizationContext (archaeology)Artificial intelligenceInformation retrievalData scienceMachine learningGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Opinion mining in outdoor images posted by users during different activities can provide valuable information to better understand urban areas. In this regard, we propose a framework to classify the sentiment of outdoor images shared by users on social networks. We compare the performance of state-of-the-art ConvNet architectures, and one specifically designed for sentiment analysis. We also evaluate how the merging of deep features and semantic information derived from the scene attributes can improve classification and cross-dataset generalization performance. The evaluation explores a novel dataset, namely OutdoorSent, and other datasets publicly available. We observe that the incorporation of knowledge about semantic attributes improves the accuracy of all ConvNet architectures studied. Besides, we found that exploring only images related to the context of the study, outdoor in our case, is recommended, i.e., indoor images were not significantly helpful. Furthermore, we demonstrated the applicability of our results in the city of Chicago, USA, showing that they can help to improve the knowledge of subjective characteristics of different areas of the city. For instance, particular areas of the city tend to concentrate more images of a specific class of sentiment, which are also correlated with median income, opening up opportunities in different fields.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.649

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.163 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningFrench-language works237,207