ANALISIS SENTIMEN PADA TWITTER TERHADAP PROGRAM KARTU PRA KERJA DENGAN RECURRENT NEURAL NETWORK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twitter menjadi salah satu media sosial dengan jumlah pengguna aktif paling banyak di Indonesia. Dengan berlakunya program kartu prakerja sejak pendaftaran gelombang pertama hingga sekarang, banyak pengguna twitter di Indonesia yang menyampaikan pendapat dan gagasan mengenai program kartu prakerja melalui twitter. Oleh karena itu penelitian ini mencoba untuk menganalisa tweet berbahasa Indonesia yang membicarakan mengenai program kartu prakerja yang ditandai dengan kata kunci prakerja dalam tweet tersebut. Analisis sentimen dilakukan dengan menggunakan metode Reccurent Neural Network (RNN) dengan Long Short Term Memory (LSTM). Dalam penelitian ini data yang digunakan di crawling menggunakan bantuan Twitter API yang diambil pada periode bulan April 2020 sampai Januari 2021 sebanyak 4122 tweet. Penelitian menghasilkan sebuah sistem yang mampu melakukan klasifikasi sentimen (positif, netral dan negatif) terhadap sebuah tweet. Tingkat akurasi dari proses training yang didapat sebesar 95,66% serta tingkat akurasi dari proses testing sebesar 64,48%. Beberapa kendala dalam proses analisis sentimen adalah data untuk pembuatan model tidak seimbang sehingga menyebabkan overfitting,
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".