Sentimental analysis of COVID-19 twitter data using deep learning and machine learning models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an ongoing pandemic with large global attention. However, spreading fake news on social media sites like Twitter is creating unnecessary anxiety and panic among people towards this disease. In this paper, we applied machine learning (ML) techniques to predict the sentiment of the people using social media such as Twitter during the COVID-19 peak in April 2021. The data contains tweets collected on the dates between 16 April 2021 and 26 April 2021 where the text of the tweets has been labelled by training the models with an already labelled dataset of corona virus tweets as positive, negative, and neutral. Sentiment analysis was conducted by a deep learning model known as Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) and various ML models for text analysis and performance which were then compared among each other. ML models used were Naïve Bayes, Logistic Regression, Random Forest, Support Vector Machines, Stochastic Gradient Descent and Extreme Gradient Boosting. Accuracy for every sentiment was separately calculated. The classification accuracies of all the ML models produced were 66.4%, 77.7%, 74.5%, 74.7%, 78.6%, and 75.5\%, respectively and BERT model produced 84.2%. Each sentiment-classified model has accuracy around or above 75%, which is a quite significant value in text mining algorithms. We could infer that most people tweeting are taking positive and neutral approaches.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".