Search results

Sarcasm is a linguistic expression that usually carries the opposite meaning of what is being said by words, thus making it difficult for machines to discover the actual meaning. It is mainly distinguished by the inflection with which it is spoken, with an undercurrent of irony, and is largely dependent on context, which makes it a difficult task for computational analysis. Moreover, sarcasm expresses negative sentiments using positive words, allowing it to easily confuse sentiment analysis models. This paper aims to demonstrate the task of sarcasm detection using the approach of machine and deep learning.

For the purpose of sarcasm detection, machine and deep learning models were used on a data set consisting of 1.3 million social media comments, including both sarcastic and non-sarcastic comments. The data set was pre-processed using natural language processing methods, and additional features were extracted and analysed. Several machine learning models, including logistic regression, ridge regression, linear support vector and support vector machines, along with two deep learning models based on bidirectional long short-term memory and one bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT)-based model, were implemented, evaluated and compared.

The performance of machine and deep learning models was compared in the task of sarcasm detection, and possible ways of improvement were discussed. Deep learning models showed more promise, performance-wise, for this type of task. Specifically, a state-of-the-art model in natural language processing, namely, BERT-based model, outperformed other machine and deep learning models.

This study compared the performance of the various machine and deep learning models in the task of sarcasm detection using the data set of 1.3 million comments from social media.

High levels of child obesity alongside rising stunting and the absence of a coherent food policy have deemed UK’s food system to be broken. The National Food Strategy (NFS) was debated intensely in media, with discussions on how and who should fix the food system.

Using a mixed methods approach, the authors conduct framing analysis on traditional media and sentiment analysis of twitter reactions to the NFS to identify frames used to shape food system policy interventions.

The study finds evidence that the media coverage of the NFS often utilised the tropes of “culture wars” shaping the debate of who is responsible to fix the food system – the government, the public or the industry. NFS recommendations were portrayed as issues of free choice to shift the debate away from government action correcting for market failure. In contrast, the industry was showcased as equipped to intervene on its own accord. Dietary recommendations made by the NFS were depicted as hurting the poor, painting a picture of helplessness and loss of control, while their voices were omitted and not represented in traditional media.

British media’s alignment with free market economic thinking has implications for food systems reform, as it deters the government from acting and relies on the invisible hand of the market to fix the system. Media firms should move beyond tropes of culture wars to discuss interventions that reform the structural causes of the UK’s broken food systems.

As traditional media coverage struggles to capture the diversity of public perception; the authors supplement framing analysis with sentiment analysis of Twitter data. To the best of our knowledge, no such media (and social media) analysis of the NFS has been conducted. The paper is also original as it extends our understanding of how media alignment with free market economic thinking has implications for food systems reform, as it deters the government from acting and relies on the invisible hand of the market to fix the system.