4.6 Review

Inconsistencies on TripAdvisor reviews: A unified index between users and Sentiment Analysis Methods

期刊

NEUROCOMPUTING
卷 353, 期 -, 页码 3-16

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.neucom.2018.09.096

关键词

Sentiment analysis; Cultural monuments; E-tourism; Polarity aggregation; Aspect based sentiment analysis

资金

  1. Spanish National Research Project [TIN2017-89517-P]
  2. Data Science and Artificial Intelligence Center (DSAIR) at the Nanyang Technological University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

TripAdvisor is an opinion source frequently used in Sentiment Analysis. On this social network, users explain their experiences in hotels, restaurants or touristic attractions. They write texts of 200 character minimum and score the overall of their review with a numeric scale that ranks from 1 (Terrible) to 5 (Excellent). In this work, we aim that this score, which we define as the User Polarity, may not be representative of the sentiment of all the sentences that make up the opinion. We analyze opinions from six Italian and Spanish monument reviews and detect that there exist inconsistencies between the User Polarity and Sentiment Analysis Methods that automatically extract polarities. The fact is that users tend to rate their visit positively, but in some cases negative sentences and aspects appear, which are detected by these methods. To address these problems, we propose a Polarity Aggregation Model that takes into account both polarities guided by the geometrical mean. We study its performance by extracting aspects of monuments reviews and assigning to them the aggregated polarities. The advantage is that it matches together the sentiment of the context (User Polarity) and the sentiment extracted by a pre-trained method (SAM Polarity). We also show that this score fixes inconsistencies and it may be applied for discovering trustworthy insights from aspects, considering both general and specific context. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据