Research on the Value and Language Features of Chinese Language and Literature Texts Based on Text Mining Technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sentiment analysis belongs to a classification technique with strong practical value, which can identify the hidden imagery in the text.In this paper, we study the sentiment tendency of words in Chinese language and literature texts, design a fuzzy ontology-based method for calculating textual sentiment tendency, build a textual sentiment tendency analysis model (SDNN) based on deep neural network and sentiment attention mechanism, and use the model in Chinese language and literature texts for empirical analysis.At 202 iterations, the Loss value of the SDNN model reaches the lowest value of 0.4626, and the corresponding accuracy, recall, and F1 values are 90.44%,79.68%, and 84.72%, respectively, and tend to be stable.It indicates that the model has better classification performance and can be used in the task of analyzing the sentiment of Chinese language and literature texts.In addition, this paper explores the rhyme structure of character emotion vocabulary in Chinese language literary discourse, and takes Liu Zongyuan's related works as an example for empirical analysis of the model.The results show that Liu Zongyuan's emotion during his ten years in Yongzhou is generally in low, and the proportion of his negative emotion has been above 75%, which is reflected in the text vocabulary emotion is more sad than happy.This paper is of some significance for the study of the emotional tendency of vocabulary in Chinese language literary texts.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".