Cited by 41Sentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningTopic ModelingHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

A heterogeneous stacking ensemble based sentiment analysis framework using multiple word embeddings

Subba, Basant, Kumari, Simpy·2022·Computational Intelligence

Abstract

Word embedding techniques have been proposed in the literature to analyze and determine the sentiments expressed in various textual documents such as social media posts, online product reviews, and so forth. However, it is difficult to capture the entire gamut of intricate inter‐dependencies among words in the textual documents using a specific word embedding technique. In this article, we aim to address this issue by proposing a computation‐efficient stacking ensemble based sentiment analysis framework using multiple word embeddings. The proposed framework uses a combination of three distinct word embeddings generated by three different state of the art word embedding techniques, namely, Word2Vec, GloVe, and BERT for performing the sentiment analysis task. It uses an explicitly trained Word2Vec model to generate the first set of 200‐dimensional word embedding. Similarly, pre‐trained GloVe and BERT models are used to generate the other two sets of 200‐dimensional and a 768‐dimensional word embeddings, respectively. These three distinct word embedding sets are then used to train a heterogeneous stacking ensemble based classifier model comprising LSTM, GRU, and Bi‐GRU based base‐level classifiers, and a LSTM based meta‐level classifier. Experimental results on four different datasets, namely, Sentiment140, IMDB Review, Twitter conversation thread, and Twitter Emotion show that the proposed framework achieves high performance with low false positive rate. The proposed framework is also shown to outperform other sentiment analysis frameworks proposed in the literature.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/coin.12478

Cites

39 of 39 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?

  • Word2Vec is capable of unsupervised learning to determine semantic meaning and similarity between words.

    “By leveraging a contextual window, Word2Vec is capable of unsupervised learning to determine semantic meaning and similarity between words (Zhao et al. 2022; Subba and Kumari 2022; Oubenali et al. 2022).”

    From Large language models (LLMs): survey, technical frameworks, and future challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Subba and Kumari 2022

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Subba, B., & Kumari, S.
Affiliations
National Institute of Technology Hamirpur (BD)
Corresponding author
Subba, Basant
Venue
Computational Intelligence
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-08-30
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
530-559
ISSN
  • 0824-7935 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-8640
OpenAlex
W3197464190
Cited by
41
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2
FWCI
2.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Computational Intelligence (publishedVersion, public-domain)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Keywords
sentiment analysis, Word2Vec, gloves, BERT, LSTM, GRU, BiGRU, text classification, social media sentiment

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