The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cross-Cultural Polarity and Emotion Detection Using Sentiment Analysis and Deep Learning on COVID-19 Related Tweets
Open accessAbstract
How different cultures react and respond given a crisis is predominant in a society's norms and political will to combat the situation. Often, the decisions made are necessitated by events, social pressure, or the need of the hour, which may not represent the nation's will. While some are pleased with it, others might show resentment. Coronavirus (COVID-19) brought a mix of similar emotions from the nations towards the decisions taken by their respective governments. Social media was bombarded with posts containing both positive and negative sentiments on the COVID-19, pandemic, lockdown, and hashtags past couple of months. Despite geographically close, many neighboring countries reacted differently to one another. For instance, Denmark and Sweden, which share many similarities, stood poles apart on the decision taken by their respective governments. Yet, their nation's support was mostly unanimous, unlike the South Asian neighboring countries where people showed a lot of anxiety and resentment. The purpose of this study is to analyze reaction of citizens from different cultures to the novel Coronavirus and people's sentiment about subsequent actions taken by different countries. Deep long short-term memory (LSTM) models used for estimating the sentiment polarity and emotions from extracted tweets have been trained to achieve state-of-the-art accuracy on the sentiment140 dataset. The use of emoticons showed a unique and novel way of validating the supervised deep learning models on tweets extracted from Twitter.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A fast learning algorithm for deep belief nets
Hinton, G. E., Osindero, S., & Teh, Y.-W. (2006) · Neural Computation · doi:10.1162/neco.2006.18.7.1527 · Cited by 16,336
Russell, J. A. (1980) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0077714 · Cited by 16,334 · cited 1×
“These include PANA model by Watson and Tellegen [7], Circumplex model by Russell [8], PAD emotional state model, and Plutchick’s model [9].”
MethodAn argument for basic emotions
Ekman, P. (1992) · Cognition and Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699939208411068 · Cited by 9,646
Akhtar, M. S., Ekbal, A., & Cambria, E. (2020) · IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine · doi:10.1109/mci.2019.2954667 · Cited by 246
Cited by
Babu, N. V., & Kanaga, E. G. M. (2022) · SN Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s42979-021-00958-1 · Cited by 303
COVID-19 Tweets Classification Based on a Hybrid Word Embedding Method
Didi, Y., Walha, A., & Wali, A. (2022) · Big Data and Cognitive Computing · doi:10.3390/bdcc6020058 · Cited by 38
Identification of affective valence of Twitter generated sentiments during the COVID-19 outbreak
Mittal, R., Mittal, A., & Aggarwal, I. (2021) · Social Network Analysis and Mining · doi:10.1007/s13278-021-00828-x · Cited by 23
Metadata
- Authors
- Imran, A. S., Daudpota, S. M., Kastrati, Z., & Batra, R.
- Venue
- IEEE Access
- Published
- 2020
- Volume
- 8
- Pages
- 181074-181090
- ISSN
- 2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3090154305
- Cited by
- 343
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 22.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cross-Cultural Polarity and Emotion Detection Using Sentiment Analysis and Deep Learning on COVID-19 Related Tweets. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/access.2020.3027350
- The paper
- Imran, A. S., Daudpota, S. M., Kastrati, Z., & Batra, R. (2020). Cross-Cultural Polarity and Emotion Detection Using Sentiment Analysis and Deep Learning on COVID-19 Related Tweets. IEEE Access. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.3027350
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.