MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408795518 · doi:10.1109/swc62898.2024.00347

Harnessing Convolutional Neural Networks for Sentiment Analysis of Tweets on the Metaverse

2024· article· en· W4408795518 on OpenAlexaff
Said A. Salloum, Fuhua Lin, Azza Basiouni, Raghad Alfaisal, Khaled Shaalan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceConvolutional neural networkMetaverseSentiment analysisArtificial intelligenceData scienceVirtual reality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the digital era, understanding public sentiment towards emerging technologies such as the Metaverse is crucial for businesses and developers. Traditional sentiment analysis methods often struggle to accurately interpret the nuances of digital communication, particularly when assessing rapid technological advancements. This study harnesses the power of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) to address this challenge, focusing on sentiment analysis of tweets related to the Metaverse. By employing advanced preprocessing techniques including tokenization and vectorization, and by using a CNN model, we have analyzed a dataset of tweets to discern public opinion with high precision. The CNN demonstrated remarkable effectiveness, achieving an overall accuracy of ${9 7 \%}$ with precision, recall, and F1-scores exceeding 0.96 for both positive and negative sentiments. These results underline the potential of CNNs in extracting meaningful insights from social media data, which can be pivotal for shaping marketing strategies and understanding consumer behavior towards new technologies like the Metaverse. The findings suggest that leveraging such deep learning models could significantly enhance the accuracy and depth of sentiment analysis in digital communication landscapes.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningFrench-language works237,207