MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415360001 · doi:10.59934/jaiea.v5i1.1548

Sentiment Analysis of Students on Campus Facilities and Infrastructure Using the Naïve Bayes Classifier Method (Case Study STMIK Kaputama)

2025· article· W4415360001 on OpenAlexaff
Rizky Fajar Sitepu, Relita Buaton, Muammar Khadapi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Artificial Intelligence and Engineering Applications (JAIEA) · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining and Machine Learning Applications
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNaive Bayes classifierClassifier (UML)Sentiment analysisWeightingPrecision and recallRecallThe Internet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Campus facilities and infrastructure play an important role in supporting the quality of learning. STMIK Kaputama faces challenges in maintaining the quality of its facilities as the number of students increases. This study applies sentiment analysis to student comments regarding classrooms, laboratories, libraries, restrooms, parking, and internet access. The method used is the Naïve Bayes Classifier with TF-IDF weighting and text preprocessing, following the CRISP-DM framework. The results show an accuracy of 73%, with the best performance in the positive class with precision 0.72; recall 0.97; F1-score 0.82, while the negative class with precision 0.79; recall 0.38; F1-score 0.51 and the neutral class was not detected. These findings indicate that the model tends to be dominant in positive sentiment but is still weak in distinguishing between negative and neutral comments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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 Artificial Intelligence and Engineering Applications (JAIEA)Same topicData Mining and Machine Learning ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207