MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405674556 · doi:10.18280/ria.380602

A Suitable Technique for Enhancing Arabic-Language Consumer Sentiment Analysis Using Natural Language Processing and Stacking Machine Learning Model

2024· article· en· W4405674556 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nouri Hicham, Habbat Nassera, Sabri Karim

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceStackingNatural language processingArabicArtificial intelligenceSentiment analysisNatural languageNatural (archaeology)LinguisticsChemistryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When deciding on a product, sentiments expressed on social media or online reviews are important information sources.Positive and negative feedback from customers posted on social media platforms could substantially impact a business's bottom line.As a result, the development of effective and efficient approaches for classifying emotion has emerged as one of the most pressing concerns for businesses.Applying machine learning is widely regarded as one of the most effective and beneficial ways.This work will investigate how well Machine Learning (ML) techniques can comprehend Arabic sentiments.The Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency algorithm (TF-IDF) was used to extract the dataset's characteristics.As a consequence of this, the algorithms known as Random Forest (RF), Decision Tree (DT), Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA), K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), support vector machine (SVM), Quadratic Discriminant Analysis (QDA), logistic regression (LR), Gradient Boosting Regression Trees (GBRT), and Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) Classifier are used in the process of sentiment analysis (SA).To sum everything up, a stacked machine-learning model was developed.Compared to existing machine learning simple classifiers, our stacked model with 10-fold cross-validation shows a higher accuracy, precision, Cohen's Kappa, recall, and F1-score in the three different Arabic datasets used, which are the Hotel Arabic-Reviews Dataset (A), the Books Reviews in Arabic Dataset (B), and the Arabic Reviews dataset (C).

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 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 score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.895

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningFrench-language works237,207