SLGP Header

A High End Sentimental Analysis in Social Media Using Hash Tags

JASEM Front Page
Author(s):
Yuvaraj.N,Sri Preethaa.K.R,Dr. A.Sabari
Volume
1, No.1
Pages:
137-143
Year of Publication:
2015
Journal of Applied Science and Engineering Methodologies
ISSN:
2395–5341
Citation: Yuvaraj,N.,Sri Preethaa,K,R,Dr. A.Sabari.(2015).A High End Sentimental Analysis in Social Media Using Hash Tags . Journal of Applied Science and Engineering Methodologies,Vol.1,No.1,pp.137-143.
Full Text Download

Abstract:
Social media websites can have variety of Linguistic features which provides a variety of useful information’s. Evaluation of usefulness of existing lexical resources as well as features that capture information about the informal and creative language can be used in micro blogging. Social media analysis can be done by Sentiment analysis which refers to the use of natural language processing, text analysis and computational linguistics to identify and extract subjective information in source materials. We take a supervised approach to the problem, but leverage existing hash tags in the Twitter data for building training data.
I.Introduction
In the past few years, there has been a huge growth in the use of micro blogging platforms such as Twitter. Spurred by that growth, companies and media organizations are increasingly seeking ways to mine Twitter for information about what people think and feel about their products and services. Companies such as Twitratr (twitrratr.com),tweetfeel(www.tweetfeel.com), and Social Mention (www.socialmention.com) are just a few who advertise Twitter sentiment analysis as one of their services. While there has been a fair amount of research on how sentiments are expressed in genres such as online reviews and news articles, how sentiments are expressed given the informal language and message-length constraints of micro blogging has been much less studied. Features such as automatic part-of-speech tags and resources such as sentiment lexicons have proved useful for sentiment analysis in other domains, but will they also prove useful for sentiment analysis in Twitter? In this paper, we begin to investigate this question.
Another challenge of micro blogging is the incredible breadth of topic that is covered. It is not an exaggeration to say that people tweet about anything and everything. Therefore, to be able to build systems to mine Twitter sentiment about any given topic, we need a method for quickly identifying data that can be used for training. In this paper, we explore one method for building such data: using Twitter hash tags (e.g., #bestfeeling, #epicfail, #news) to identify positive, negative, and neutral tweets to use for training three way sentiment classifiers

References:

  1. Barbosa, L., and Feng, J. 2010. Robust sentiment detection on twitter from biased and noisy data. InProc. of Coling.
  2. Bifet, A., and Frank, E. 2010. Sentiment knowledge discovery in twitter streaming data. In Proc. of 13th International Conference on Discovery Science.
  3. Davidov, D.; Tsur, O.; and Rappoport, A. 2010. Enhanced sentiment learning using twitter hashtags and smileys. In Proceedings of Coling.
  4. Esuli, A., and Sebastiani, F. 2006. SentiWordNet: A publicly available lexical resource for opinion mining. In Proceedings of LREC.
  5. Hatzivassiloglou, V., and McKeown, K. 1997. Predicting the semantic orientation of adjectives. In Proc. of ACL
  6. Jansen, B. J.; Zhang, M.; Sobel, K.; and Chowdury, A. 2009.Twitter power: Tweets as electronic word of mouth. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60(11):2169–2188.
  7. Kim, S.-M., and Hovy, E. 2004. Determining the sentiment of opinions. In Proceedings of Coling
  8. O’Connor, B.; Balasubramanyan, R.; Routledge, B.; and Smith, N. 2010. From tweets to polls: Linking text sentiment to public opinion time series. In Proceedings of ICWSM.
  9. Pak, A., and Paroubek, P. 2010. Twitter as a corpus for sentiment analysis and opinion mining. In Proc. of LREC.
  10. Pang, B., and Lee, L. 2008. Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval 2(1-2):1–135.
  11. Schapire, R. E., and Singer, Y. 2000. BoosTexter: A boosting-based system for text categorization. Machine Learning 39(2/3):135–168.
  12. Tumasjan, A.; Sprenger, T. O.; Sandner, P.; and Welpe, I. 2010. Predicting elections with twitter: What 140 characters reveal about political sentiment. In Proceedings of ICWSM.
  13. Wasden, L. 2006. Internet Lingo Dictionary: A Parent’s Guide to Codes Used in Chat Rooms, Instant Messaging, Text Messaging, and Blogs. Technical report, Idaho office of the Attorney General.
  14. Wilson, T.; Wiebe, J.; and Hoffmann, P. 2009. Recognizing contextual polarity: An exploration of features for phrase-level sentiment analysis. Computational linguistics 35(3):399–433.
  15. Yu, H., and Hatzivassiloglou, V. 2003. Towards answering opinion questions: Separating facts from opinions and identifying the polarity of opinion sentences. InProc. Of EMNLP.