Sentiment and Toxicity Score Evaluation of DJI Avata Product Reviews Using Cross-Industry Standard Process for Data Mining


Authors

  • Yerik Afrianto Singgalen Universitas Katolik Indonesia Atma Jaya, Jakarta, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30865/klik.v4i6.1946

Keywords:

CRISP-DM framework; Consumer Sentiment Analysis; DJI Avata; Digital Marketing; Sentiment Classification

Abstract

This research employs the CRISP-DM framework to analyze consumer sentiment and preferences regarding DJI Avata drone products, aiming to provide data-driven strategic recommendations for marketing and product development. By systematically exploring business objectives, preparing and cleaning data, and modeling sentiment, the study reveals high consumer engagement and predominantly positive sentiment (51.91% positive, 31.16% neutral, 16.93% negative) towards the DJI Avata. The Support Vector Machine (SVM) algorithm demonstrated superior performance in sentiment classification, achieving an accuracy of 74.69%, with an AUC of 0.839, precision of 77.57%, recall of 69.68%, and F-measure of 73.23%. A comparative analysis between the VADER and TextBlob models, showing a moderate agreement (Cohen’s kappa statistic = 0.413) on 64.84% of the posts, highlighted the value of using multiple sentiment analysis tools. Furthermore, toxicity scores calculated via the Perspective API identified critical areas for improvement in user engagement. Subsequently, the toxicity results reveal the following scores: Toxicity with an average of 0.09461 and a peak of 0.90451, Severe Toxicity with an average of 0.00817 and a peak of 0.45895, Identity Attack with an average of 0.01139 and a peak of 0.58743, Insult with an average of 0.04543 and a peak of 0.70658, Profanity with an average of 0.06133 and a peak of 0.89080, and Threat with an average of 0.02063 and a peak of 0.69437. These detailed metrics provide a comprehensive understanding of the dataset's different dimensions and intensities of negative sentiments. The significant variation between average and peak values indicates the presence of highly negative interactions, which necessitates targeted intervention. Consequently, these findings inform the development of specific strategies to mitigate toxicity and enhance the overall user experience in digital communities. These insights informed strategic recommendations to enhance digital marketing efforts and product features, underscoring the CRISP-DM framework's efficacy in guiding comprehensive consumer sentiment analysis and fostering informed decision-making in the aerial photography and videography market.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

A. Calcara, A. Gilli, M. Gilli, and I. Zaccagnini, “Will the Drone Always Get Through? Offensive Myths and Defensive Realities,” Secur. Stud., vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 791–825, 2022, doi: 10.1080/09636412.2022.2153734.

G. Krame, V. Vivoda, and A. Davies, “Narco drones: tracing the evolution of cartel aerial tactics in Mexico’s low-intensity conflicts,” Small Wars Insur., vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 1095–1129, 2023, doi: 10.1080/09592318.2023.2226382.

A. Zenz, “Safety first: analysing the problematisation of drones,” Griffith Law Rev., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 310–334, 2023, doi: 10.1080/10383441.2024.2303937.

D. Kunertova, “Drones have boots: Learning from Russia’s war in Ukraine,” Contemp. Secur. Policy, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 576–591, 2023, doi: 10.1080/13523260.2023.2262792.

C. S. Ritter, “Gazing from the air: tourist encounters in the age of travel drones,” Tour. Geogr., vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 1–17, 2023, doi: 10.1080/14616688.2023.2264823.

A. Tkaczynski and S. Rundle-Thiele, “Koala conservation in South East Queensland: a shared responsibility,” Australas. J. Environ. Manag., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 48–67, 2023, doi: 10.1080/14486563.2023.2173320.

S. C. Teo, T. W. Liew, and H. Y. Lim, “Factors influencing consumers’ continuance purchase intention of local food via online food delivery services: the moderating role of gender,” Cogent Bus. Manag., vol. 11, no. 1, p., 2024, doi: 10.1080/23311975.2024.2316919.

H. N. Chuong, V. T. P. Uyen, N. D. P. Ngan, N. T. B. Tram, L. N. B. Tran, and N. T. T. Ha, “Exploring a new service prospect: customer’ intention determinants in light of utaut theory,” Cogent Bus. Manag., vol. 11, no. 1, p., 2024, doi: 10.1080/23311975.2023.2291856.

J. M. de Luis-Ruiz, J. Sedano-Cibrián, R. Pérez-Álvarez, R. Pereda-García, and B. Malagón-Picón, “Metric contrast of thermal 3D models of large industrial facilities obtained by means of low-cost infrared sensors in UAV platforms,” Int. J. Remote Sens., vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 457–483, 2022, doi: 10.1080/01431161.2021.2003903.

J. Sun, S. Wang, and F. Yuan, “The relationship between intrapreneurial capabilities and development in high-tech SMEs in China,” Asian J. Technol. Innov., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 160–181, 2024, doi: 10.1080/19761597.2023.2177878.

K. H. Zhang, “U.S.-China Economic Links and Technological Decoupling,” Chinese Econ., vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 353–365, 2023, doi: 10.1080/10971475.2023.2173399.

S. Kojima et al., “Heterogeneous robots coordination for industrial plant inspection and evaluation at World Robot Summit 2020,” Adv. Robot., vol. 36, no. 21, pp. 1102–1119, 2022, doi: 10.1080/01691864.2022.2111230.

S. Khodjaev, L. Kuhn, I. Bobojonov, and T. Glauben, “Combining multiple UAV-Based indicators for wheat yield estimation, a case study from Germany,” Eur. J. Remote Sens., vol. 57, no. 1, 2024, doi: 10.1080/22797254.2023.2294121.

D. R. Burchfield, S. L. Petersen, S. G. Kitchen, and R. R. Jensen, “sUAS-Based Remote Sensing in Mountainous Areas: Benefits, Challenges, and Best Practices,” Pap. Appl. Geogr., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 72–83, 2020, doi: 10.1080/23754931.2020.1716385.

E. Masson-MacLean, J. O’Driscoll, C. McIver, and G. Noble, “Digitally Recording Excavations on a Budget: A (Low-Cost) DIY Approach from Scotland,” J. F. Archaeol., vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 595–613, 2021, doi: 10.1080/00934690.2021.1970444.

J. W. Park and D. J. Yeom, “Method for establishing ground control points to realize UAV-based precision digital maps of earthwork sites,” J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 110–119, 2022, doi: 10.1080/13467581.2020.1869023.

M. I. Tabash, U. A. Sheikh, and M. Asad, “Market miracles: Resilience of Karachi stock exchange index against terrorism in Pakistan,” Cogent Econ. Financ., vol. 8, no. 1, 2020, doi: 10.1080/23322039.2020.1821998.

T. Farooq, S. Lucas, and S. Wolff, “Predators and Peace: Explaining the Failure of the Pakistani Conflict Settlement Process in 2013-4,” Civ. Wars, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 26–63, 2020, doi: 10.1080/13698249.2020.1704603.

M. Heath, A. Imran, and D. St-Onge, “See as a Bee: UV Sensor for Aerial Strawberry Crop Monitoring,” Can. J. Remote Sens., vol. 50, no. 1, p., 2024, doi: 10.1080/07038992.2024.2332179.

M. Mutschler, M. Bales, and E. Meininghaus, “The impact of precision strike technology on the warfare of non-state armed groups: case studies on Daesh and the Houthis,” Small Wars Insur., vol. 00, no. 00, pp. 1–28, 2024, doi: 10.1080/09592318.2024.2319216.

C. Chen, S. Leon, and P. Ractham, “Will customers adopt last-mile drone delivery services? An analysis of drone delivery in the emerging market economy,” Cogent Bus. Manag., vol. 9, no. 1, 2022, doi: 10.1080/23311975.2022.2074340.

P. Abichandani et al., “Competition-based active learning instruction for drone education,” Interact. Learn. Environ., vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 1–19, 2022, doi: 10.1080/10494820.2022.2128821.

L. A. O’Hagan and E. Serafinelli, “Transhistoricizing the Drone: A Comparative Visual Social Semiotic Analysis of Pigeon and Domestic Drone Photography,” Photogr. Cult., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 327–351, 2022, doi: 10.1080/17514517.2022.2116899.

A. M. El-Adle, A. Ghoniem, and M. Haouari, “The cost of carrier consistency: Last-mile delivery by vehicle and drone for subscription-based orders,” J. Oper. Res. Soc., vol. 75, no. 5, pp. 821–840, 2024, doi: 10.1080/01605682.2023.2210604.

H. Rahmani and G. R. Weckman, “Working under the Shadow of Drones: Investigating Occupational Safety Hazards among Commercial Drone Pilots,” IISE Trans. Occup. Ergon. Hum. Factors, vol. 12, no. 1–2, pp. 55–67, 2024, doi: 10.1080/24725838.2023.2251009.

Y. A. Singgalen, “Penerapan Metode CRISP-DM dalam Klasifikasi Data Ulasan Pengunjung Destinasi Danau Toba Menggunakan Algoritma Naïve Bayes Classifier ( NBC ) dan Decision Tree ( DT ),” J. Media Inform. Budidarma, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 1551–1562, 2023, doi: 10.30865/mib.v7i3.6461.

S. Leon, C. Chen, and A. Ratcliffe, “Consumers’ perceptions of the environmental and public health benefits of last mile drone delivery,” Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl., vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 1–25, 2024, doi: 10.1080/13675567.2024.2341851.

B. Alsadik, “Crowdsource Drone Imagery–A Powerful Source for the 3D Documentation of Cultural Heritage at Risk,” Int. J. Archit. Herit., vol. 16, no. 7, pp. 977–987, 2022, doi: 10.1080/15583058.2020.1853851.

H. Han, “Consumer behavior and environmental sustainability in tourism and hospitality: a review of theories, concepts, and latest research,” J. Sustain. Tour., vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 1021–1042, 2021, doi: 10.1080/09669582.2021.1903019.

G. Miller and A. Torres-Delgado, “Measuring sustainable tourism: a state of the art review of sustainable tourism indicators,” J. Sustain. Tour., vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 1483–1496, 2023, doi: 10.1080/09669582.2023.2213859.

X. Zhan, F. bin Guo, and E. Roberts, “Image-based research methods for mapping tourist behaviour: smart photos,” Tour. Recreat. Res., vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 1–7, 2023, doi: 10.1080/02508281.2023.2196487.


Bila bermanfaat silahkan share artikel ini

Berikan Komentar Anda terhadap artikel Sentiment and Toxicity Score Evaluation of DJI Avata Product Reviews Using Cross-Industry Standard Process for Data Mining

Dimensions Badge

ARTICLE HISTORY


Published: 2024-06-25
Abstract View: 52 times
PDF Download: 26 times

Issue

Section

Articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>