Anais Do XIII Simpósio Brasileiro De Tecnologia Da Informação E Da Linguagem Humana (STIL 2021) 2021
DOI: 10.5753/stil.2021.17785
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Sentiment Analysis in Portuguese Texts from Online Health Community Forums: Data, Model and Evaluation

Abstract: This study introduces novel data and models for the task of Sentiment Analysis in Portuguese texts about Diabetes Mellitus. The corpus contains 1290 posts retrieved from online health community forums in Portuguese and annotated by two annotators according to 3 sentiment categories (e.g. Positive, Neutral and Negative). Evaluation of traditional (Support Vector Machine, Decision Tree, Random Forest and Logistic Regression classifiers) and state-ofthe-art (BERT-based models) machine learning classifiers for the… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 13 publications
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The Recall was present in 81 (43%) and Precision in 78 (42%) papers, followed by Accuracy, mentioned by 55 works (30%). This reveals a common approach to validating text classification models since many studies employ evaluation metrics to compare the performance of different DL and ML models as in [Cordeiro et al 2022, Gumiel et al 2021]. This analysis corroborates the findings of [Souza et al 2018].…”
Section: Evaluation Measuressupporting
confidence: 76%
“…The Recall was present in 81 (43%) and Precision in 78 (42%) papers, followed by Accuracy, mentioned by 55 works (30%). This reveals a common approach to validating text classification models since many studies employ evaluation metrics to compare the performance of different DL and ML models as in [Cordeiro et al 2022, Gumiel et al 2021]. This analysis corroborates the findings of [Souza et al 2018].…”
Section: Evaluation Measuressupporting
confidence: 76%