Sentiment Analysis of Short Texts Using SVMs and VSMs-Based Multiclass Semantic Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In our approach, a hybrid machine learning model is proposed which uses Enhanced Vector Space Model (EVSM) along with Hybrid Support Vector Machine (HSVM) classifier. Initially the social media-based information is retrieved using Enhanced Vector Space Model (EVSM). EVSMs are employed in order to characterize the text content by mapping them into high-dimensional vector spaces, capturing the relationships between words and their contextual meanings. Rigorous feature selection methods are employed to designate texts for review, and a multiclass semantic classification algorithm, specifically the HSVM classifier, is utilized for categorization. Decision tree algorithm is used along with SVM to refine the selection process. To enhance sentiment analysis accuracy, sentiment dictionaries are not only presented but also extended through the expansion of Stanford’s GloVE tool. To enhance precision, the proposed work introduces weight-enhancing methods for processing renowned text weights. Sentiments are classified into positive, negative, and neutral categories. Notably, the achieved results demonstrate improved accuracy, attributed to the incorporation of an emotional sentiment enhancement factor for determining weights and leveraging sentiment dictionaries for word availability. The accuracy is obtained to be 92.78% with 91.33% positive sentiment rate and 97.32% negative sentiment rate.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".