Sentiment Analysis Models with Bayesian Approach: A Bike Preference Application in Metropolitan Cities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social media data is an important source of information that can also be used for the study of the passenger mobility sector. In transport systems, user choice is studied through demand models that define how user behavior is affected by the performance of the supply system. Demand models are typically calibrated through data observed in the transport system. The observed data includes the choices actually made by users. This paper investigates how sentiment analysis of data available in social media can be adopted to specify, calibrate, and validate demand models in certain choice levels. In this work a model based on the Bayesian approach is specified, calibrated, and validated in the case of bike preference in some Italian metropolitan cities. The model takes into account the discrete choice approach. Specification, calibration, and validation made it possible to identify the relevant variables that influence sentiments and obtain the posterior distribution probability of the parameters. The prior and the posterior conditional probabilities are compared, and some indications are obtained on the elasticity and weight of the sentiments that influence the choice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".