ArticleScientific reports2026
BERT based sentiment analysis of consumer hesitancy toward solar energy adoption.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The adoption of solar energy is pivotal in addressing climate change and achieving long-term energy security. However, its widespread deployment faces notable barriers, including high upfront costs, consumer doubts about system reliability, and unclear policy landscapes. To explore public perception and barriers to adoption, this study proposes a hybrid sentiment analysis framework that integrates a fine-tuned BERT model with TF-IDF-based feature enhancement. The model is applied to diverse consumer-generated content sourced from social media, review platforms, and public forums. Because the corpus is mixed-access, social-platform data were collected via official APIs and are not redistributed as raw text; instead, we share only permitted identifiers for rehydration (where allowed), preprocessing scripts, and non-reversible derived artifacts, while open corpora are shared in accordance with their licenses. Our approach achieves a validation F1-score of 0.85 and an overall test F1-score of 0.82, accurately capturing nuanced sentiments across domains. Quantitative analysis reveals that cost-related concerns account for over 41% of negative sentiment, followed by reliability (28%) and environmental skepticism (19%). The inclusion of cumulative gain analysis and high-confidence prediction filtering improves result interpretability and prioritization of insights. These findings provide valuable guidance for policymakers, solar energy firms, and sustainability advocates seeking to design targeted interventions and accelerate consumer acceptance of solar energy technologies.
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.