Model Comparison in Sentiment Analysis: A Case Study of Amazon Product Reviews
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sentiment analysis is essential in NLP, especially in businesses because it can improve customer services. This paper focuses on a particular case of sentiment analysis, a case study of Amazon reviews of books on kindle. Firstly, this paper applies several non-deep-learning algorithms including Logistic Regression, Naïve Bayes, Support Vector Machine, Convolutional Neural Network, and Recurrent Neural Network, and compares their accuracies. Especially, for deep learning methods, this paper studies the slope of accuracies concerning the number of hidden layers. Secondly, as a multi-class text classification problem, the product review data set has five labels ranging from one star to five stars, a new method called Hybrid Sequential Binary Classification (HSBC) is introduced in this paper, which improves the behavior of classical binary classifiers on a multi-class text classification problem. Moreover, a comparison of HSBC and multi-class classification models is presented.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it