Sentiment analysis using a lexicon-based approach in Lisbon, Portugal
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
Advances in digital sensors and Information flow have created an abundance of data generated by users under various emotional states in different situations. Although this opens up a new facet in spatial research, the large amount of data makes it difficult to analyze and obtain complete and comprehensive information leading to an increase in the demand for sentiment analysis. In this study, the Canadian National Research Council (NRC) of Sentiment and Emotion Lexicon (EmoLex) was used, based on data from the social network Twitter (now X), thus enabling the identification of the places in Lisbon where both positive and negative sentiment prevails. From the results obtained, the Portuguese are happy in spaces associated with leisure and consumption, such as museums, event venues, gardens, shopping centres, stores, and restaurants. The high score of words associated with negative sentiment have more bias, since the lexicon sometimes has difficulties to identify the context in which the word appears, ending up giving it a negative score (e.g., war, terminal).
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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