Cited by 124Sentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningOpinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

Sentiment analysis on tweets for social events

Zhou, Xujuan, Tao, Xiaohui, Yong, Jianming, Yang, Zhenyu·2013·Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD)

Abstract

Sentiment analysis or opinion mining is an important type of text analysis that aims to support decision making by extracting and analyzing opinion oriented text, identifying positive and negative opinions, and measuring how positively or negatively an entity (i.e., people, organization, event, location, product, topic, etc.) is regarded. As more and more users express their political and religious views on Twitter, tweets become valuable sources of people's opinions. Tweets data can be efficiently used to infer people's opinions for marketing or social studies. This paper proposes a Tweets Sentiment Analysis Model (TSAM) that can spot the societal interest and general people's opinions in regard to a social event. In this paper, Australian federal election 2010 event was taken as an example for sentiment analysis experiments. We are primarily interested in the sentiment of the specific political candidates, i.e., two primary minister candidates - Julia Gillard and Tony Abbot. Our experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of the system.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/cscwd.2013.6581022

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The automation of sentiment detection on social networks has gained attention for various purposes.

    “The automation of sentiment detection on these social networks has gained attention for various purposes [18][19][20].”

    From Survey on AI-Based Multimodal Methods for Emotion Detection (2019) · cites this paper as [19]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 19 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhou, X., Tao, X., Yong, J., & Yang, Z.
Affiliations
  • Queensland University of Technology (AU)
  • University of Southern Queensland (AU)
  • Aalborg University (DK)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 17th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2013-06
Pages
557-562
OpenAlex
W1990239322
Cited by
124
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7
FWCI
5.38
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD) (publishedVersion)
  • University of Southern Queensland ePrints (University of Southern Queensland) (acceptedVersion)
  • VBN Forskningsportal (Aalborg Universitet) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Keywords
sentiment analysis, Twitter, tweets, social gatherings, political attitudes, political candidates, Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott, public opinion

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