Cited by 12Hate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionSpam and Phishing DetectionSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining

Analysis of Tweets for Cyberbullying Detection

Mathur, Shipra Anil, Isarka, Shivam, Dharmasivam, Bhuvaneswar, C. D., Jaidhar·2023·2023 Third International Conference on Secure Cyber Computing and Communication (ICSCCC)

Abstract

Cyberbullying takes place online on gadgets like smartphones and computers. Cyberbullying can occur through social media platforms. This paper presents a real-time cyber-bullying detection system for Twitter using Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Machine Learning (ML). The system is trained on a dataset of cyberbullying tweets using several ML algorithms and their performance is compared. Random Forest was found to provide the best results after tuning. To achieve real-time analysis, Selenium was used to scrape tweets from a given Twitter account and store the timestamp of the already checked tweets. Additionally, an image captioning model was employed to generate descriptions for images posted on the account and compare them with user-written captions to filter out spam tweets. The proposed work aims to prevent cyberbullying and provides a valuable tool for online platforms to detect and remove harmful content. The results of this study have shown that the selection of appropriate ML algorithms and preprocessing techniques significantly impact the performance of cyberbullying detection on Twitter. Our model sheds light on the appropriateness of different ML algorithms for the detection of cyberbullying.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/icsccc58608.2023.10176416

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

  • The review identified weaknesses of machine learning classifiers in cyberbullying detection, including lack of automatic feature extraction, inability to perform real-time detection, and difficulty processing large volumes of data.

    “The review identified weaknesses of machine learning classifiers in cyberbullying detection, including the lack of automatic feature extraction methods, inability to perform real-time detection, and difficulty processing large volumes of data [95,122,123].”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 9 · Cited by 12

Authors
Mathur, S. A., Isarka, S., Dharmasivam, B., & C. D., J.
Affiliations
  • National Institute of Technology Karnataka (IN)
  • National Institute of Technology Karnataka,Department of Information Technology,Surathkal,Karnataka,India,575025
Venue
2023 Third International Conference on Secure Cyber Computing and Communication (ICSCCC)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2023-05-26
Pages
269-274
OpenAlex
W4384345401
Cited by
12
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3
FWCI
2.13
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Conference on Secure Cyber Computing and Communications (ICSCCC) (publishedVersion)
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 › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Keywords
cyberbullying detection, Twitter, harmful content removal, spam filtering, image captioning, random forest, machine learning algorithm comparison, social media abuse

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