MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392655881 · doi:10.47392/irjaeh.2024.0029

A Comparative Study on Machine Learning Approaches for Sentiment Analysis

2024· article· en· W4392655881 on OpenAlex
T. Kumaresan

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Research Journal on Advanced Engineering Hub (IRJAEH) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSentiment analysisComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sentiment analysis plays a pivotal role in the operations of online product companies. User reviews are taken into account by others when they search for products, forming the cornerstone for delivering the right product based on user sentiments through sentiment analysis. Sentiment analysis involves the process of collecting, analyzing, and recommending reviews, which are often extensive and contain multiple paragraphs of content. This paper presents a comparative analysis of various machine learning models used to conduct sentiment analysis on customer reviews of Amazon products within the Electronics category. The initial models under scrutiny for our analysis include Logistic Regression, Decision Tree, Naive Bayes Classifier, Random Forest, Support Vector Machines, and BERT Model. The experimental result show that BERT classifier achieves higher accuracy when compare with other machine learning models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.141
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.279 · 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