CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 38Hate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionBullying, Victimization, and AggressionSpam and Phishing Detection

Cyberbullying Identification Using Participant-Vocabulary Consistency

Open access
Raisi, Elaheh, Huang, Bert·2016·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1606.08084arXiv 1606.08084
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

With the rise of social media, people can now form relationships and communities easily regardless of location, race, ethnicity, or gender. However, the power of social media simultaneously enables harmful online behavior such as harassment and bullying. Cyberbullying is a serious social problem, making it an important topic in social network analysis. Machine learning methods can potentially help provide better understanding of this phenomenon, but they must address several key challenges: the rapidly changing vocabulary involved in cyber- bullying, the role of social network structure, and the scale of the data. In this study, we propose a model that simultaneously discovers instigators and victims of bullying as well as new bullying vocabulary by starting with a corpus of social interactions and a seed dictionary of bullying indicators. We formulate an objective function based on participant-vocabulary consistency. We evaluate this approach on Twitter and Ask.fm data sets and show that the proposed method can detect new bullying vocabulary as well as victims and bullies.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1606.08084

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Annotating or labeling cyberbullying data is challenging because it requires a domain expert to label the corpus.

    “Another challenging task is to annotate or label the data because they require a domain expert to label the corpus [202].”

    From A Review on Deep-Learning-Based Cyberbullying Detection (2023) · cites this paper as [202]

    The Introduction (p. 1) says annotation is difficult and requires cultural expertise and examination of participants’ social structure. But it also says training data may be annotated by experts or crowdsourced workers, so it does not establish that a domain expert must label the corpus. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. Boyd, Danah. It's Complicated . Yale University Press, 2014.
  2. Chen, Ying, Zhou, Yilu, Zhu, Sencun, and Xu, Heng. Detecting offensive language in social media to protect adolescent online safety. International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust (PASSAT), and International Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom) , pp. 71-80, 2012.
  3. Dinakar, Karthik, Reichart, Roi, and Lieberman, Henry. Modeling the detection of textual cyberbullying. International Conference on Weblog and Social Media - Social Mobile Web Workshop , 2011. ditchthelabel.org. Ditch the label-anti-bullying charity: The annual cyberbullying survey. 2013. URL http: //www.ditchthelabel.org/ .
  4. Hosseinmardi, Homa, Han, Richard, Lv, Qin, Mishra, Shivakant, and Ghasemianlangroodi, Amir. Towards understanding cyberbullying behavior in a semianonymous social network. Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), 2014 IEEE/ACM International Conference on , pp. 244-252, August 2014a.
  5. Hosseinmardi, Homa, Li, Shaosong, Yang, Zhili, Lv, Qin, Rafiq, Rahat Ibn, Han, Richard, and Mishra, Shivakant. A comparison of common users across instagram and ask.fm to better understand cyberbullying. Big Data and Cloud Computing (BdCloud), 2014 IEEE Fourth International Conference on , pp. 355-362, 2014b.
  6. Huang, Qianjia and Singh, Vivek Kumar. Cyber bullying detection using social and textual analysis. SAM '14 Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Socially-Aware Multimedia , pp. 3-6, 2014.
  7. Margono, Hendro, Yi, Xun, and Raikundalia, Gitesh K. Mining indonesian cyber bullying patterns in social networks. Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Australasian Computer Science Conference (ACSC 2014) , 147, January 2014.
  8. Massoudi, Kamran, Tsagkias, Manos, de Rijke, Maarten, and Weerkamp, Wouter. Incorporating query expansion and quality indicators in searching microblog posts. AIR11. Springer , 15(5):362-367, November 2011.
  9. Nahar, Vinita, Li, Xue, and Pang, Chaoyi. An effective approach for cyberbullying detection. Communications in Information Science and Management Engineering. , 3(5):238-247, May 2013.
  10. Ptaszynski, Michal, Dybala, Pawel, Matsuba, Tatsuaki, Masui, Fumito, Rzepka, Rafal, and Araki, Kenji. Machine learning and affect analysis against cyberbullying. In the 36th AISB , pp. 7-16), 2010.
  11. Ramakrishnan, Naren, Butler, Patrick, Muthiah, Sathappan, Self, Nathan, Khandpur, Rupinder, and et al. 'Beating the news' with EMBERS: Forecasting civil unrest using open source indicators. KDD , 2014.
  12. Reynolds, Kelly, Kontostathis, April, and Edwards, Lynne. Using machine learning to detect cyberbullying. 10th International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications and Workshops (ICMLA) , 2:241-4, 2011.
  13. Wang, Jing, Iannotti, Ronald J., and Nansel, Tonja R. School bullying among us adolescents: Physical, verbal, relational and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health , 45: 368-375, 2009.
  14. Yin, Dawei, Xue, Zhenzhen, Hong, Liangjie, Davison, Brian D., Kontostathis, April, and Edwards, Lynne. Detection of harassment on web 2.0. Proceedings of the Content Analysis in the WEB 2.0 , 2009.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Raisi, E., & Huang, B.
Affiliations
Virginia Tech (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2016
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1606.08084
arXiv
1606.08084
OpenAlex
W2465011684
Cited by
38
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
Keywords
cyberbullying detection, social network structure, online harassment, Twitter

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