OutdoorSent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Opinion mining in outdoor images posted by users during different activities can provide valuable information to better understand urban areas. In this regard, we propose a framework to classify the sentiment of outdoor images shared by users on social networks. We compare the performance of state-of-the-art ConvNet architectures and one specifically designed for sentiment analysis. We also evaluate how the merging of deep features and semantic information derived from the scene attributes can improve classification and cross-dataset generalization performance. The evaluation explores a novel dataset—namely, OutdoorSent—and other publicly available datasets. We observe that the incorporation of knowledge about semantic attributes improves the accuracy of all ConvNet architectures studied. Besides, we found that exploring only images related to the context of the study—outdoor, in our case—is recommended, i.e., indoor images were not significantly helpful. Furthermore, we demonstrated the applicability of our results in the United States city of Chicago, Illinois, showing that they can help to improve the knowledge of subjective characteristics of different areas of the city. For instance, particular areas of the city tend to concentrate more images of a specific class of sentiment, which are also correlated with median income, opening up opportunities in different fields.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.036 |
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".