Cited by 30Hate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionSpam and Phishing DetectionText and Document Classification Technologies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How to take advantage of behavioral features for the early detection of grooming in online conversations

Milon-Flores, Daniela F., Cordeiro, Robson L.F.·2022·Knowledge-Based Systems

Abstract

Detecting grooming behavior in online conversations has become a growing problem due to the large number of messaging platforms that children and young people use nowadays. The biggest drawback is the lack of tools focused on the automatic prevention of this risk. This paper proposes seven Behavioral Features (BFs) to be used for early grooming detection. A detailed study is conducted to understand the background that allows these features to contribute to tasks of early classification. Besides, we introduce the Behavioral Feature - Profile Specific Representation (BF-PSR) framework as an extension of the well-known Profile Specific Representation (PSR) framework to properly employ the proposed behavioral features. Experimental results reveal that our proposal outperforms all the concurrent methods and obtains state-of-the-art performance in the area of early grooming detection. Specifically, the new BF-PSR framework achieves a gain of more than 40% in effectiveness over five competitors when only 10% of the SGD conversations content is available, thus it shows a substantial advantage to allow the early detection of grooming; besides, it maintains a similar gain in effectiveness as more data arrives. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first work to employ behavioral features for the early detection of grooming. On the other hand, we have assembled two new datasets called PJZ and PJZC to mitigate the lack of data in the grooming detection area. Both sets are publicly available for download aimed at fostering further researches. Additional experiments reveal that our BF-PSR framework outperforms all state-of-the-art methods when processing these new datasets.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.knosys.2021.108017

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. C. Morris, G. Hirst, Identifying sexual predators by svm classification with lexical and behavioral features, in: Working Notes of the CLEF 2012 Evaluation Labs and Workshop, 2012.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Milon-Flores, D. F., & Cordeiro, R. L. F.
Affiliations
Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
Corresponding author
Cordeiro, Robson L.F.
Venue
Knowledge-Based Systems
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-03
Volume
240
Pages
108017
ISSN
0950-7051 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4200478206
Cited by
29
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 14
FWCI
1.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Knowledge-Based Systems (publishedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Text and Document Classification Technologies
Keywords
behavioral characteristics, early detection, online discourse, child online safety, chatbot conversations, limited training data, datasets

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