feddit.org

3 points

2 months ago

Oh, that’s the reason you won’t, right?

Because I’m not a computer scientist so I can’t understand the sentiment analysis and come up with appropriate hypotheses?

You were able to for me so why aren’t you able to again?

report

TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world

[ - ]

-5 points

2 months ago

The fuck are you talking about. I literally said I was doing it in my response.

Bruh this is why you come up as a troll in so much of your comments.

report

[ - ]

3 points

2 months ago

Maybe work on your reading comprehension.

I’m glad you proved my point that you are unwilling or unable to perform the same analysis that you claimed you did on me.

report

TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world

[ - ]

-5 points

2 months ago

I’m literally setting up for that right now, and for the third time you are accusing of not doing exactly what I’m trying to do for you. It takes a while to download all the comments. I’ll let you know when I have them.

report

[ - ]

3 points

2 months ago

Because I’m not a computer scientist so I can’t understand the sentiment analysis and come up with appropriate hypotheses?

That’s the part you might be having troubles with.

I’ve tried telling you that a couple times now.

report

[ - ]

3 points

2 months ago

Because I’m not a computer scientist so I can’t understand the sentiment analysis and come up with appropriate hypotheses?

You were able to do it for me, so there’s no reason you can’t for someone else.

report

TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world

[ - ]

-5 points

2 months ago

Did you open the paper and read it? The hypothesis are very simple.

They need to be set up with two parts, the first a predicate, then the second part is a couple options…

So for example a hypothesis can be set up in two parts as follows:

Part A:

“The author of this comment { } about a border wall”

Part B:

[“thinks negatively” | “thinks positively” “is neutral”]

The options are intended to fill in the gap in the curly braces.

The model will give a probabilistic ranking of the three options, so you need to think carefully about how you set up your hypothesis.

Like I said drop them here or dm me and I can run them once I’ve scrapped UMs comments.

[Edit: I’ve got UM’s comments, and I’ve saved them to disk. Let me know if you’ve got your questions ready, or if you still need help understanding how to set up a hypothesis]

[Addendum] @SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world

I’m going to give you a worked example.

This is on UM’s most recent comment:

“She was on my ballot, so she is a candidate. I don’t know how to explain this any better.”

So I set up the predicate:

‘The author of this post {} Joe Biden.’

with the options:

[‘supports’, ‘opposes’, ‘is not talking about’]

and we get the result:

{‘sequence’: ‘She was on my ballot, so she is a candidate. I don’t know how to explain this any better.’,

‘labels’: [‘is not talking about’, ‘supports’, ‘opposes’],

‘scores’: [0.9906510710716248, 0.008063388988375664, 0.0012855551904067397]}

So this comment we would score as “not talking about Joe Biden”. Anything you can think of that can fit within that framework. I dont know UM, but you seem to, so you probably know what would be interesting to ask.

report