Unveiling Public Sentiment on Quarter Life Crisis: A Comparative Performance Evaluation of Support Vector Machine and Naïve Bayes Algorithms on Social Media X Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quarter Life Crisis (QLC) is one of the psychological issues experienced by many young adults and is characterized by uncertainty, anxiety, and emotional distress. In the digital era, public opinion about QLC is increasingly expressed through social media, particularly platform X. This study seeks to classify public opinion related to the QLC into positive and negative sentiments by employing two computational classification models, namely Support Vector Machine (SVM) and Naïve Bayes (NB). Despite the growing discourse, there has been no study specifically comparing classification algorithms to analyze public sentiment on QLC. Data collection was conducted through crawling techniques on platform X from November 2024 to January 2025, resulting in a total of 1120 tweets. The data underwent preprocessing, lexicon-based sentiment labeling, and TF-IDF word weighting. After preprocessing, classification using SVM and NB was evaluated by accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score. Results indicate that SVM achieved superior performance with an accuracy of 83%, outperforming NB, which recorded 74%. These outcomes demonstrate that the SVM algorithm demonstrates superior performance in analyzing public sentiment regarding QLC. This research contributes by providing empirical evidence regarding algorithm performance for sentiment analysis in mental health topics, offering recommendations for effective early detection strategies utilizing social media data.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".