Sentiment Analysis of Social Media Towards Public Services Using Naive Bayes and Text Mining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid development of information and communication technology has driven the increased use of social media as a means of interaction between the public and service providers. Social media has become a platform for the public to express their opinions on the quality of services they receive, whether in the form of praise, suggestions, or complaints. Therefore, sentiment analysis of social media data can be a strategic tool in evaluating the performance of public services. This research aims to analyze public sentiment towards public services by utilizing text mining techniques and the Naive Bayes Classifier algorithm. The data used was collected from social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook, followed by a text preprocessing stage that included tokenizing, stopword removal, and stemming. Subsequently, the data was analyzed to classify sentiment into positive, negative, and neutral categories. The test results show that the Naive Bayes algorithm is capable of classifying data with a satisfactory level of accuracy, making it an efficient method for monitoring public perception in real-time. This research contributes to supporting decision-making by government agencies regarding the improvement of public service quality based on publicly available feedback from social media
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".