ONSET: Opinion and Aspect Extraction System from Unlabelled Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Online businesses are highly interested in finding practical solutions to opinion mining, but it is challenging to extract aspects and sentiments from the text. One way to solve this problem is to fine-tune good quality extractions from reviews using state-of-the-art pre-trained language models. However, such fine-tuned language models can produce good results if trained with a large amount of relevant data. In this paper, a technique that can fine-tune language models for opinion extractions using unlabelled training data. This paper proposes a novel opinion mining system called ONSET. This system is developed through a fine-tuned language model using an unsupervised learning approach to label aspects using topic modeling and then using semi-supervised learning with data augmentation. With extensive experiments performed during this research, the proposed model can achieve similar results as some state-of-the-art models produce with a high quantity of labelled training data. F1-scores of 87.30% and 88.35% are achieved on SemEval Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis and Twitter datasets, respectively.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".