The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cyber Hate Speech on Twitter: An Application of Machine Classification and Statistical Modeling for Policy and Decision Making
Open accessAbstract
The use of “Big Data” in policy and decision making is a current topic of debate. The 2013 murder of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich, London, UK led to an extensive public reaction on social media, providing the opportunity to study the spread of online hate speech (cyber hate) on Twitter. Human annotated Twitter data was collected in the immediate aftermath of Rigby's murder to train and test a supervised machine learning text classifier that distinguishes between hateful and/or antagonistic responses with a focus on race, ethnicity, or religion; and more general responses. Classification features were derived from the content of each tweet, including grammatical dependencies between words to recognize “othering” phrases, incitement to respond with antagonistic action, and claims of well‐founded or justified discrimination against social groups. The results of the classifier were optimal using a combination of probabilistic, rule‐based, and spatial‐based classifiers with a voted ensemble meta‐classifier. We demonstrate how the results of the classifier can be robustly utilized in a statistical model used to forecast the likely spread of cyber hate in a sample of Twitter data. The applications to policy and decision making are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
Sentiment strength detection in short informal text
Thelwall, M., Buckley, K., Paltoglou, G., Cai, D., & Kappas, A. (2010) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21416 · Cited by 1,449
Cited by
Automated Hate Speech Detection and the Problem of Offensive Language
Davidson, T., Warmsley, D., Macy, M., & Weber, I. (2017) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v11i1.14955 · Cited by 2,610
A Survey on Automatic Detection of Hate Speech in Text
Fortuna, P., & Nunes, S. (2019) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3232676 · Cited by 1,241
The Risk of Racial Bias in Hate Speech Detection
Sap, M., Card, D., Gabriel, S., Choi, Y., & Smith, N. A. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1163 · Cited by 817
Understanding Abuse: A Typology of Abusive Language Detection Subtasks
Waseem, Z., Davidson, T., Warmsley, D., & Weber, I. (2017) · Proceedings of the First Workshop on Abusive Language Online · doi:10.18653/v1/w17-3012 · Cited by 474
Williams, M. L., Burnap, P., & Sloan, L. (2017) · Sociology · doi:10.1177/0038038517708140 · Cited by 423
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Burnap, P., & Williams, M. L.
- Venue
- Policy & Internet
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-04-22
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 223-242
- ISSN
- 1944-2866 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1871142974
- Cited by
- 616
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 33.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cyber Hate Speech on Twitter: An Application of Machine Classification and Statistical Modeling for Policy and Decision Making. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/poi3.85
- The paper
- Burnap, P., & Williams, M. L. (2015). Cyber Hate Speech on Twitter: An Application of Machine Classification and Statistical Modeling for Policy and Decision Making. Policy & Internet. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.85
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.