Melola Discovery

← Melola Discovery

Open access Jurnal SINTA 1

Fine tuning attribute weighted naïve Bayes model for detecting anxiety disorder levels of online gamers

International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE) · Vol. 14 No. 3 (2024)

DOI
10.11591/ijece.v14i3.pp3277-3286
ISSN
2722-2578, 2088-8708
Published
2024-06-01
Publisher
Institute of Advanced Engineering and Science
License
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0

Abstract

This research applies the fine tuning attribute weighted naïve Bayes (FTAWNB) model using ordinal data. It is known that in previous research, the FTAWNB model outperformed its competitors on the dataset used. However, the FTAWNB model has not been applied in the mental health domain that uses ordinal data. Therefore, this research used the anxiety gamers dataset to test the fine-tuning attribute weighted Naïve Bayes (FTAWNB) model. Anxiety disorders are mental health disorders that can indicate the emergence of a gaming disorder. Gamers can experience anxiety disorders classified into four classes, namely minimal, mild, moderate, and severe anxiety. Then compare the results by FTAWNB obtained with three other naïve Bayes algorithms, namely Gaussian naïve Bayes, multinomial naïve Bayes, and categorical naïve Bayes, using the same dataset. Model performance is measured based on accuracy, precision, recall, and processing time. The test results show that the FTAWNB outperforms the other three models' accuracy, precision, and recall, with an accuracy value of 99.22%. While the accuracy of Gaussian NB is 91.132%, Categorical is 91.592%, and multinomial naïve Bayes is 61.104%. However, the FTAWNB takes slightly longer than the other three models' processing time. The FTAWNB takes 0.07 seconds to build the model and 0.05 seconds to test the model on training data.

Collaboration network of the authors

40 authors · 59 co-authorship links · 11 across different organisations · showing the 40 most connected

Hover or tap a name to highlight its co-authors. Double-click to open the author's page.

  • Universitas Gadjah Mada
  • Muria Kudus University
  • Institut Teknologi dan Sains Mandala
  • Jenderal Soedirman University
  • Udayana University
  • Politeknik Gorontalo
  • Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji
  • Other organisations
  • Affiliation unknown
  • Different organisations
  • Same organisation
  • Affiliation unknown
  • Thicker line = more joint articles · bigger circle = more articles
Show as table
Co-authorOrganisationJoint articles
Sri T. HartatiUniversitas Gadjah Mada8
Edi WinarkoUniversitas Gadjah Mada4
Khabib MustofaUniversitas Gadjah Mada4
Edhy SutantaUniversitas Gadjah Mada4
Anny Kartika SariUniversitas Gadjah Mada4
Rahmat BudiarsaUniversitas Gadjah Mada4
Agus HarjokoUniversitas Gadjah Mada3
Ahmad AshariUniversitas Gadjah Mada2
Ria AstriratmaUniversitas Gadjah Mada2
Fajar Ibnu TufeilAffiliation unknown1
Bangun WijayantoUniversitas Gadjah Mada1
Decky HendarsyahUniversitas Gadjah Mada1
Awaluddin AwaluddinAffiliation unknown1
Putri Elfa Mas’udiaAffiliation unknown1
Rina PramitasariUniversitas Gadjah Mada1
Albert Dian SanoAffiliation unknown1
Abdul WahidInstitut Teknologi dan Sains Mandala1
Nur HasanahAffiliation unknown1
Muhamad Munawar YusroJenderal Soedirman University1
Muhammad FakhrurrifqiAffiliation unknown1
Peggi Sri AstutiUdayana University1
Rahman EramaPoliteknik Gorontalo1
Christian Dwi SuhendraUniversitas Gadjah Mada1
Mujiono MujionoAffiliation unknown1
Annisa MaulianiUniversitas Gadjah Mada1
Nola RithaUniversitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji1
Made Arya BudhiAffiliation unknown1
Elizabeth Paskahlia GunawanAffiliation unknown1
Nelson RumuiPoliteknik Negeri Ketapang1
Maulida Ayu FitrianiUniversitas Gadjah Mada1
Ulfi Saidata AesyiAffiliation unknown1
Damar RiyadiUniversitas Gadjah Mada1
Ilham UnggaraUniversitas Gadjah Mada1
Yessi YunitasariUniversitas Gadjah Mada1
Dias Aziz PramuditaUniversitas Gadjah Mada1
Abidah ElcholiqiUniversitas Gadjah Mada1

Affiliations come from OpenAlex; journal OAI-PMH metadata carries none. Authors without an OpenAlex ID are matched by name, which can merge or split people.

This record comes from Crossref (what the publisher deposited), because the journal's own OAI-PMH endpoint could not be harvested.

Metadata source: Crossref API (cadangan, berdasarkan ISSN) https://api.crossref.org/journals/2088-8708/works, first harvested 27 Okt 2026, last seen 27 Okt 2026.
Metadata as oai_dc, converted from Crossref
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/"><dc:title>Fine tuning attribute weighted naïve Bayes model for detecting anxiety disorder levels of online gamers</dc:title><dc:creator>Latubessy, Anastasya</dc:creator><dc:creator>Wardoyo, Retantyo</dc:creator><dc:creator>Musdholifah, Aina</dc:creator><dc:creator>Kusrohmaniah, Sri</dc:creator><dc:description>&lt;jats:p&gt;This research applies the fine tuning attribute weighted naïve Bayes (FTAWNB) model using ordinal data. It is known that in previous research, the FTAWNB model outperformed its competitors on the dataset used. However, the FTAWNB model has not been applied in the mental health domain that uses ordinal data. Therefore, this research used the anxiety gamers dataset to test the fine-tuning attribute weighted Naïve Bayes (FTAWNB) model. Anxiety disorders are mental health disorders that can indicate the emergence of a gaming disorder. Gamers can experience anxiety disorders classified into four classes, namely minimal, mild, moderate, and severe anxiety. Then compare the results by FTAWNB obtained with three other naïve Bayes algorithms, namely Gaussian naïve Bayes, multinomial naïve Bayes, and categorical naïve Bayes, using the same dataset. Model performance is measured based on accuracy, precision, recall, and processing time. The test results show that the FTAWNB outperforms the other three models' accuracy, precision, and recall, with an accuracy value of 99.22%. While the accuracy of Gaussian NB is 91.132%, Categorical is 91.592%, and multinomial naïve Bayes is 61.104%. However, the FTAWNB takes slightly longer than the other three models' processing time. The FTAWNB takes 0.07 seconds to build the model and 0.05 seconds to test the model on training data.&lt;/jats:p&gt;</dc:description><dc:publisher>Institute of Advanced Engineering and Science</dc:publisher><dc:date>2024-06-01</dc:date><dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type><dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format><dc:identifier>https://doi.org/10.11591/ijece.v14i3.pp3277-3286</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>10.11591/ijece.v14i3.pp3277-3286</dc:identifier><dc:source>International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering (IJECE); Vol 14 No 3 (2024); 3277</dc:source><dc:source>2722-2578</dc:source><dc:source>2088-8708</dc:source><dc:relation>https://ijece.iaescore.com/index.php/IJECE/article/viewFile/35406/17424</dc:relation><dc:rights>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0</dc:rights></oai_dc:dc>