MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412091361 · doi:10.14419/9g302r53

Deep Learning-Based Classification of Comments and Reviews for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with Web Application Implementation

2025· article· en· W4412091361 on OpenAlexaff
D. Dhanya, S. Kalaivany, M. Suresh Anand, Rakhi Rakhi, G. Jaya Raju, Anurag Vijay Agrawal, Nithya Rekha Sivakumar, Ravindra Jogekar

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSustainable developmentProcess managementArtificial intelligenceData scienceBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work aims to develop an intelligent system that leverages natural language processing (NLP) and deep learning to analyze and interpret textual data in the context Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The core objective is to identify semantic relationships between input text and specific SDGs, thereby enabling automated classification and supporting sustainable decision-making. The work focuses on the application of data augmentation techniques to enhance training datasets, refinement of existing classification models through hyperparameter tuning, and the proposal of a novel classification model to improve accuracy and reliability. Additionally, the work includes the development of a user-friendly web application with extended functionalities, allowing users to input text manually or upload text files to determine the most relevant SDG. This integrated approach aims to bridge the gap between unstructured textual data and structured sustainability frameworks, providing an innovative tool for researchers, policymakers, and organizations working toward global sustainability goals.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designOther design
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 venueInternational Journal of Basic and Applied SciencesSame topicSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningFrench-language works237,207