MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W349662773

Adding a Capability to Extract Sentiment from Text Using HanDles

2012· article· en· W349662773 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Simon Dennis, Benjamin Stone, Jihun Hamm, Peter J. Kwantes

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSentiment analysisComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Information retrievalSimilarity (geometry)Test (biology)Test setNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceProduct (mathematics)Data scienceImage (mathematics)Mathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract : HanDles is a document visualization tool developed by Ohio State University for DRDC Toronto. One aspect of documents that might be of interest to analysts is the extent to which they express positive or negative opinion or sentiment toward some issue or group. In this report, we describe how HanDles was extended to include the ability to classify documents as containing predominantly positive or negative sentiment. The capability was added to the tool so that it could be used in Influence Operations contexts. As a test case, we trained HanDles to distinguish good and poor film reviews, and then tested it three times to see how well it classified documents. The first test was conducted on reviews of the Amazon Kindle. The second test was run on text segments of the original training set of movie reviews, and finally, it was tested on a set of movie reviews that it had not seen before. In general, HanDles did a poor job detecting the sentiment associated with the reviews of the Amazon Kindle. We attribute the poor performance to the fact that movie and product reviews discuss different issues, and as such, there is limited similarity in the two classes of document. Not surprisingly, HanDles did a good job classifying text segments of the original training set. Also, the finding demonstrated that, unlike many other sentiment analysis tools that only classify text at the whole-document level, HanDles can be used effectively to extract the issues being discussed within documents, and assign sentiment to those. For example, a review of a film might be classified as negative overall, but HanDles can determine that the acting was good, but the directing was poor. Finally, when we tested HanDles on a new set of movie reviews it had not seen before, it performed with 93.3% accuracy. The results of our trial suggest that there must be some similarity between the documents used during training and those used in the operational context for HanDles to work properly.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.007

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningFrench-language works237,207