Machine learning techniques for emotion detection and sentiment analysis: current state, challenges, and future directions
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
Emotion detection and Sentiment analysis techniques are used to understand polarity or emotions expressed by people in many cases, especially during interactive systems use. Recognizing users’ emotions is an important topic for human–computer interaction. Computers that recognize emotions would provide more natural interactions. Also, emotion detection helps design human-centred systems that provide adaptable behaviour change interventions based on users’ emotions. The growing capability of machine learning to analyze big data and extract emotions therein has led to a surge in research in this domain. With this increased attention, it becomes essential to investigate this research area and provide a comprehensive review of the current state. In this paper, we conduct a systematic review of 123 papers on machine learning-based emotion detection to investigate research trends along many themes, including machine learning approaches, application domain, data, evaluation, and outcome. The results demonstrate: 1) increasing interest in this domain, 2) supervised machine learning (namely, SVM and Naïve Bayes) are the most popular algorithms, 3) Text datasets in the English language are the most common data source, and 4) most research use Accuracy to evaluate performance. Based on the findings, we suggest future directions and recommendations for developing human-centred systems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it