Accessible AI: comparing ChatGPT and traditional machine learning for sentiment analysis

Purpose This study aims to investigate the effectiveness and accessibility of GPT-4-turbo, a large language model (LLM), compared to traditional machine learning (ML) methods for sentiment analysis in restaurant reviews. Beyond predictive performance, the study emphasizes practical usability, focusing on accessibility, implementation effort and interpretability particularly for hospitality professionals without technical expertise. Design/methodology/approach A data set of 4,000 Yelp restaurant reviews was used to compare four traditional ML models (Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machine, Random Forest and Naive Bayes) against GPT-4-turbo, deployed in a zero-shot, no-code setting via the paid ChatGPT interface. All models were evaluated using accuracy, F1 score, recall, computational time and interpretability. Five-fold cross-validation and paired Welch’s t-tests were used to assess statistical significance among traditional models, while bootstrapping and error analysis were used to assess GPT-4-turbo’s classification behavior. Findings Support Vector Machine achieved the highest accuracy (92.36%) and F1 score (95.23%) among traditional models, while GPT-4-turbo offered the highest recall (97.28%) and required minimal setup, with no coding or data preprocessing. Although GPT-4-turbo had a slightly higher overall error rate, its ease of use and strong recall suggest that it is a viable option for rapid sentiment analysis in operational hospitality contexts. Practical implications While traditional ML models remain effective, GPT-4-turbo offers a fast, no-code alternative for hospitality professionals with limited technical expertise. Its high recall and ease of use make it well-suited for timely monitoring of customer feedback and rapid service recovery. Overall, user-friendly AI tools can lower adoption barriers and support data-informed decision-making in hospitality operations, strengthening service quality and guest experience management. Originality/value This study shifts the focus from technical model optimization to practical usability and accessibility of sentiment analysis tools in hospitality. It uniquely examines GPT-4-turbo as a no-code, plug-and-play alternative to traditional ML models for binary sentiment classification. By evaluating not just accuracy but also implementation effort and interpretability, the study offers a practitioner-oriented perspective on AI adoption in hospitality analytics, contributing new insights into real-world applicability in service and experience management contexts.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
Published
2026-04-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-05-2025-0698
Primary Topic
AI in Service Interactions
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Accessible AI: comparing ChatGPT and traditional machine learning for sentiment analysis

Irem Önder
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
AI in Service Interactions
article

Accessible AI: comparing ChatGPT and traditional machine learning for sentiment analysis

Irem Önder
article en

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to investigate the effectiveness and accessibility of GPT-4-turbo, a large language model (LLM), compared to traditional machine learning (ML) methods for sentiment analysis in restaurant reviews. Beyond predictive performance, the study emphasizes practical usability, focusing on accessibility, implementation effort and interpretability particularly for hospitality professionals without technical expertise. Design/methodology/approach A data set of 4,000 Yelp restaurant reviews was used to compare four traditional ML models (Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machine, Random Forest and Naive Bayes) against GPT-4-turbo, deployed in a zero-shot, no-code setting via the paid ChatGPT interface. All models were evaluated using accuracy, F1 score, recall, computational time and interpretability. Five-fold cross-validation and paired Welch’s t-tests were used to assess statistical significance among traditional models, while bootstrapping and error analysis were used to assess GPT-4-turbo’s classification behavior. Findings Support Vector Machine achieved the highest accuracy (92.36%) and F1 score (95.23%) among traditional models, while GPT-4-turbo offered the highest recall (97.28%) and required minimal setup, with no coding or data preprocessing. Although GPT-4-turbo had a slightly higher overall error rate, its ease of use and strong recall suggest that it is a viable option for rapid sentiment analysis in operational hospitality contexts. Practical implications While traditional ML models remain effective, GPT-4-turbo offers a fast, no-code alternative for hospitality professionals with limited technical expertise. Its high recall and ease of use make it well-suited for timely monitoring of customer feedback and rapid service recovery. Overall, user-friendly AI tools can lower adoption barriers and support data-informed decision-making in hospitality operations, strengthening service quality and guest experience management. Originality/value This study shifts the focus from technical model optimization to practical usability and accessibility of sentiment analysis tools in hospitality. It uniquely examines GPT-4-turbo as a no-code, plug-and-play alternative to traditional ML models for binary sentiment classification. By evaluating not just accuracy but also implementation effort and interpretability, the study offers a practitioner-oriented perspective on AI adoption in hospitality analytics, contributing new insights into real-world applicability in service and experience management contexts.

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality ManagementVol. 38(5)
Amherst College (US), University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 16%
AI in Service Interactions
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.