Enhanced sentiment analysis and emotion detection in movie reviews using support vector machine algorithm
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Films evoke diverse responses and reactions from audiences, captured through their reviews. These reviews serve as platforms for audiences to express opinions, evaluations, and emotions about films, reflecting the personal experiences and unique perceptions of the viewers. Given the vast volume of reviews and the distinctiveness of each perspective, automated analysis is essential for efficiently extracting valuable insights. This study employs the support vector machine (SVM) algorithm for classifying movie reviews into positive and negative categories. The dataset includes 50,000 IMDb movie reviews, split evenly between positive and negative sentiments. Each review is analyzed using the National Research Council Canada (NRC) emotion lexicon (NRCLex) to assign scores for emotions such as anger, disgust, fear, joy, sadness, and surprise. Subsequently, these reviews are further analyzed using term frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF) for classification. The proposed algorithm achieves 90% accuracy, indicating its effectiveness in classifying sentiments in movie reviews. The study's findings confirm the potential of the SVM algorithm for broader applications in sentiment analysis and natural language processing. Additionally, integrating emotion detection enhances understanding of nuanced emotional content, providing a comprehensive approach to sentiment classification in large datasets.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it