MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388422667 · doi:10.18280/isi.280530

Leveraging Latent Dirichlet Allocation for Feature Extraction in User Comments: Enhancements to User-Centered Design in Indonesian Financial Technology

2023· article· en· W4388422667 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Albertus Dwiyoga Widiantoro, Mustafid Mustafid, Ridwan Sanjaya

Bibliographic record

VenueIngénierie des systèmes d information · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Text Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatent Dirichlet allocationIndonesianComputer scienceDirichlet distributionTopic modelData miningInformation retrievalMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The burgeoning Financial Technology (FinTech) sector in Indonesia, while witnessing a surge in user base, contends with limitations in system functionalities and service offerings.The extraction of latent features from user comments is imperative for the identification of these inadequacies, serving as a catalyst for innovation and delivering advantages to both consumers and developers of FinTech applications.This study employs Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) algorithm, an intelligent probabilistic model, to discern and extract underlying topics within narratives found in user comments on FinTech platforms.In this approach, words within each topic are ranked according to their respective probabilities.Through the LDA algorithm, ten salient topics, each comprising ten keywords, have been identified.These topics coalesce into three broad categories: system improvements in applications, services that are out of sync with the system, and service satisfaction.The coherence of the topics has been quantitatively assessed, with an average score of 0.564, indicative of substantial coherence.Findings from the LDA model are integrated into the User-Centered Design (UCeD) framework, wherein the algorithm streamlines the UCeD's evaluative and abstraction processes, as well as the grouping of user necessities.This integration aids FinTech management teams in pinpointing pertinent user feedback, thereby facilitating the refinement of application development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIngénierie des systèmes d informationSame topicAdvanced Text Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207