A Proportional Sentiment Analysis of MOOCs Course Reviews Using Supervised Learning Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When anyone is looking to enroll for a freely available online course so the first and famous name comes in front of the searcher is MOOC courses. So here in this article our focus is to collect the comments by enrolled users for the specified MOOC course and apply sentiment analysis over that data. The significance of our article is to introduce a proficient sentiment analysis algorithm with high perceptive execution in MOOC courses, by seeking after the standards of gathering various supervised learning methods where the performance of various supervised machine learning algorithms in performing sentiment analysis of MOOC data. Some research questions have been addressed on sentiment analysis of MOOC data. For the assessment task, we have investigated a large no of MOOC courses, with the different Supervised Learning methods and calculated accuracy of the data by using parameters such as Precision, Recall and F1 Score. From the results we can conclude that when the bigram model was applied to the logistic regression, the Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) overcomes the accuracy by other algorithms as SVM, Naive Bayes and achieved an accuracy of 92.44 percent. To determine the sentiment polarity of a sentence, the suggested method use term frequency (No of Positive, Negative terms in the text) to calculate the sentiment polarity of the text. We use a logistic regression Function to predict the sentiment classification accuracy of positive and negative comments from the data.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".