A Joint Learning Sentiment Analysis Method Incorporating Emoji-Augmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social media is the platform for most people to share their opinions, emojis are also widely used to express moods, emotions, and feelings on social media. There have been many researched on emojis and sentiment analysis. However, existing methods mainly face two limitations. First, since deep learning relies on large amounts of labeled data, the training samples of emoji are not enough to achieve the training effect. Second, they consider the sentiment of emojis and texts separately, not fully exploring the impact of emojis on the sentiment polarity of texts. In this paper, we propose a joint learning sentiment analysis method incorporating emoji-augmentation, and the method has two advantages compared with the existing work. First, We optimize the easy data augmentation method so that the newly generated sentences can also preserve the semantic information of emojis, which relieves the problem of insufficient training data with emojis. Second, it fuses emojis and text features to allow the model to better learn the mutual emotional semantics between text and emojis, jointly training emojis and words to obtain the sentence representations containing more semantic information of both emojis and text. Our experimental results show that the proposed method can significantly improve the performance compared with several baselines on two datasets.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".