MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409787901 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127a-476

Computer model-based analysis of user behaviour and emotional disposition on social platforms

2025· article· en· W4409787901 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDispositionComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to be able to accurately identify user behavior and emotional tendency, this paper firstly adopts the neural network structure to build the emotion analysis model, and divides the model into four parts to analyze the text and emotion in social media, and obtains the information of semantics and emotion-related content in social media text.Secondly, from the semantic and emotional symbol content of the text in social media, the public emotional tendency model is built, and the sharing content and behavior of a large number of users in social media are analyzed.Finally, the association rule mining algorithm is used to extract the text and emotional symbols in social media, to improve the accuracy of the user's emotional tendency analysis model, and to be able to accurately derive the user's behavioral habits.In order to verify the analytical effect of the model, the model was tested, and the training speed of the BLSTM model was fast, and the training time was 1.5 hours in the first iteration of the test with a data set of 1 million.The model is more accurate in analyzing the user's positive emotions, with accuracy and precision around 85% and 90% respectively, and the results obtained are more accurate, meet the user's needs, and enhance the user's experience.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.517
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207