MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225512260 · doi:10.33322/petir.v15i1.1352

Analisis Opini Pengguna Aplikasi New PLN Mobile Menggunakan Text Mining

2021· article· id· W4225512260 on OpenAlexaff
Handrea Bernando Tambunan, Tiva Winahyu Dwi Hapsari

Bibliographic record

VenuePetir · 2021
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation Retrieval and Data Mining
Canadian institutionsPositive Living North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesComputer scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Media sosial pada saat ini menjadi suatu media yang sangat populer untuk menyampaikan opini oleh masyarakat di Indonesia. Melalui media sosial pengguna dapat dengan mudah mengungkapkan pengalamannya terhadap suatu produk, salah satunya adalah aplikasi New PLN Mobile dari PT PLN (Persero). Aplikasi tersebut menjadi platform digital untuk memenuhi berbagai kebutuhan pelanggan terkait pelayanan ketenagalistrikan. Salah satu metode yang dapat dipakai untuk menganalisa opini pengguna adalah menggunakan text mining dengan pendekatan word cloud, network explorer, jenis emosi, dan analisis sentimen. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa analisis word cloud memberikan frekuensi komentar terkait keberadaan aplikasi, pengalaman pelanggan, fitur baru, informasi pelanggan, hingga interaksi dan komunikasi pada media sosial. Selanjutnya analisis network explorer menunjukkan bahwa kata yang saling berkaitan adalah “aplikasi pln mobile” dan “kemudahan layanan gangguan”. Analisa jenis emosi mengekspresikan sebagian besar pelanggan terkejut (surprise) dengan adanya aplikasi aplikasi New PLN Mobile. Analisis sentimen menunjukkan bahwa sebagian besar kluster pelanggan menunjukkan sentimen yang sangat positif terhadap keberadaan aplikasi New PLN Mobile.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.009

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePetirSame topicInformation Retrieval and Data MiningFrench-language works237,207