Sentence-level sentiment tagging across different domains and genres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The demand for information about sentiment expressed in texts has stimulated a growing interest into automatic sentiment analysis in Natural Language Processing (NLP). This dissertation is motivated by an unmet need for high-performance domain-independent sentiment taggers and by pressing theoretical questions in NLP, where the exploration of limitations of specific approaches, as well as synergies between them, remain practically unaddressed. This study focuses on sentiment tagging at the sentence level and covers four genres: news, blogs, movie reviews, and product reviews. It draws comparisons between sentiment annotation at different linguistic levels (words, sentences, and texts) and highlights the key differences between supervised machine learning methods that rely on annotated corpora (corpus-based, CBA) and lexicon-based approaches (LBA) to sentiment tagging. Exploring the performance of supervised corpus-based approach to sentiment tagging, this study highlights the strong domain-dependence of the CBA. I present the development of LBA approaches based on general lexicons, such as WordNet, as a potential solution to the domain portability problem. A system for sentiment marker extraction from WordNet's relations and glosses is developed and used to acquire lists for a lexicon-based system for sentiment annotation at the sentence and text levels. It demonstrates that LBA's performance across domains is more stable than that of CBA. Finally, the study proposes an integration of LBA and CBA in an ensemble of classifiers using a precision-based voting technique that allows the ensemble system to incorporate the best features of both CBA and LBA. This combined approach outperforms both base learners and provides a promising solution to the domain-adaptation problem. The study contributes to NLP (1) by developing algorithms for automatic acquisition of sentiment-laden words from dictionary definitions; (2) by conducting a systematic study of approaches to sentiment classification and of factors affecting their performance; (3) by refining the lexicon-based approach by introducing valence shifter handling and parse tree information; and (4) by development of the combined, CBA/LBA approach that brings together the strengths of the two approaches and allows domain-adaptation with limited amounts of labeled training 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".