4.5 Article

Integrated CNN- and LSTM-DNN-based sentiment analysis over big social data for opinion mining

期刊

BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
卷 40, 期 9, 页码 XI-XIX

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/0144929X.2019.1699960

关键词

Opinion mining; convolutional neural network; long short-term memory; social media posts; twitter messages

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The paper introduces a sentiment analysis method based on ICNN-LSTM-DNN, which is capable of extracting user facts and opinions in real-time from large-scale social data, particularly suitable for analyzing opinions and facts in tweets.
The interactive and real-time characteristics of gathering public opinion through the process of investigating big social data have gained more popularity and attention from the recent past. Moreover, massive social media data wide opened an immense opportunity for businesses for extracting potential insights. However, big data analytics applications pose a crucial challenge in distinguishing opinions from the factors. In this paper, an Integrated Convolutional Neural Network and Long Short Term Memory (LSTM) Recurrent Neural Network-based Deep Neural Networks-based Sentiment Analysis Methodology (ICNN-LSTM-DNN) was proposed over the big social data for opinion mining. This proposed ICNN-LSTM-DNN-based sentiment analysis approach is an adaptable sentimental analysis mechanism that is capable of investigating social media posts and extracts user's facts and opinion in real-time. This proposed ICNN-LSTM-DNN-based sentiment analysis approach is mainly for facilitating automatic separation of facts from the opinions extracted from twitter messages posted online. This proposed ICNN-LSTM-DNN-based sentiment analysis approach was applied over the tweets associated with the 2019 Indian Election for opinion mining. This proposed ICNN-LSTM-DNN-based sentiment analysis approach outperformed different baseline techniques used for investigation in terms of accuracy, precision, recall, and F-Measure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据