ArticleScientific reports2024
Public opinion mining in social media about Ethiopian broadcasts using deep learning.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Now adays people express and share their opinions on various events on the internet thanks to social media. Opinion mining is the process of interpreting user-generated opinion data on social media. Aside from its lack of resources in opinion-mining tasks, Amharic presents numerous difficulties because of its complex structure and variety of dialects. Analyzing every comment written in Amharic is a challenging task. Significant advancements in opinion mining have been achieved using deep learning. An opinion-mining model was used in this study to classify user comments written in Amharic as positive or negative. The domains that we focus on in this study are YouTube and Facebook. From the Ethiopian broadcasts YouTube and Facebook official pages, we gathered 11,872 unstructured data for this study using www.exportcomment.com , and Facebook page tools. Text preprocessing and feature extraction techniques were used, in addition to manual annotation by linguistic specialists. The dataset was prepared for the experiment after annotation, preprocessing, and representation. LSTM, GRU, BiGRU, BiLSTM, and a hybrid of CNN with BiLSTM classifiers from the TensorFlow Keras deep learning library were used to train the model using the dataset, which was split using the 80/20 train-test method, which proved effective for classification problems. Finally, we achieved of 94.27%, 95.20%, 95.49%, 95.62%, and 96.08% using GRU, BiGRU, LSTM, BiLSTM, and CNN with BiLSTM, respectively, in word2vec embedding model.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.