MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400779789 · doi:10.22148/001c.118497

Revisiting Weimar Film Reviewers’ Sentiments: Integrating Lexicon-Based Sentiment Analysis with Large Language Models

2024· article· en· W4400779789 on OpenAlex
Isadora Campregher Paiva, Josephine Diecke

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cultural Analytics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLexiconSentiment analysisNatural language processingComputer scienceLinguisticsArtificial intelligencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Film reviews are an obvious area for the application of sentiment analysis, but while this is common in the field of computer science, it has been mostly absent in film studies. Film scholars have quite rightly been skeptical of such techniques due to their inability to grasp nuanced critical texts. Recent technological developments have, however, given us cause to re-evaluate the usefulness of automated sentiment analysis for historical film reviews. The release of ever more sophisticated Large Language Models (LLMs) has shown that their capacity to handle nuanced language could overcome some of the shortcomings of lexicon-based sentiment analysis. Applying it to historical film reviews seemed logical and promising to us. Some of our early optimism was misplaced: while LLMs, and in particular ChatGPT, proved indeed to be much more adept at dealing with nuanced language, they are also difficult to control and implement in a consistent and reproducible way -- two things that lexicon-based sentiment analysis excels at. Given these contrasting sets of strengths and weaknesses, we propose an innovative solution which combines the two, and has more accurate results. In a two-step process, we first harness ChatGPT's more nuanced grasp of language to undertake a verbose sentiment analysis, in which the model is prompted to explain its judgment of the film reviews at length. We then apply a lexicon-based sentiment analysis (with Python's NLTK library and its VADER lexicon) to the result of ChatGPT's analysis, thus achieving systematic results. When applied to a corpus of 80 reviews of three canonical Weimar films (*Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari*, *Metropolis* and *Nosferatu*), this approach successfully recognized the sentiments of 88.75% of reviews, a considerable improvement when compared to the accuracy rate of the direct application of VADER to the reviews (66.25%). These results are particularly impressive given that this corpus is especially challenging for automated sentiment analysis, with a prevalence of macabre themes, which can easily trigger falsely negative results, and a high number of mixed reviews. We believe this hybrid approach could prove useful for application in large corpora, for which close reading of all reviews would be humanly impossible.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.277 · 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