Cyberbullying Detection Task: the EBSI-LIA-UNAM System (ELU) at COLING’18 TRAC-1
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phenomenon of cyberbullying has growing in worrying proportions with the development of social networks. Forums and chat rooms are spaces where serious damage can now be done to others, while the tools for avoiding on-line spills are still limited. This study aims to assess the ability that both classical and state-of-the-art vector space modeling methods provide to well known learning machines to identify aggression levels in social network cyberbullying (i.e. social network posts manually labeled as Overtly Aggressive, Covertly Aggressive and Non-aggressive). To this end, an exploratory stage was performed first in order to find relevant settings to test, i.e. by using training and development samples, we trained multiple learning machines using multiple vector space modeling methods and discarded the less informative configurations. Finally, we selected the two best settings and their voting combination to form three competing systems. These systems were submitted to the competition of the TRACK-1 task of the Workshop on Trolling, Aggression and Cyberbullying. Our voting combination system resulted second place in predicting Aggression levels on a test set of untagged social network posts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it