MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214816497 · doi:10.25071/2564-2855.11

Content moderation as language policy

2022· article· en· W4214816497 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Mandy Lau

Bibliographic record

VenueWorking papers in Applied Linguistics and Linguistics at York · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOffensiveModerationNormativeComputer scienceProcess (computing)De factoGovernment (linguistics)Language policyContent (measure theory)Public relationsPsychologyPolitical scienceLinguisticsSocial psychologyLawEngineeringOperations researchPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commercial content moderation removes harassment, abuse, hate, or any material deemed harmful or offensive from user-generated content platforms. A platform’s content policy and related government regulations are forms of explicit language policy. This kind of policy dictates the classifications of harmful language and aims to change users’ language practices by force. However, the de facto language policy is the actual practice of language moderation by algorithms and humans. Algorithms and human moderators enforce which words (and thereby, content) can be shared, revealing the normative values of hateful, offensive, or free speech and shaping how users adapt and create new language practices. This paper will introduce the process and challenges of commercial content moderation, as well as Canada’s proposed Bill C-36 with its complementary regulatory framework, and briefly discuss the implications for language practices.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.177
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.177
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0100.043
Scholarly communication0.0190.022
Open science0.0030.012
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorking papers in Applied Linguistics and Linguistics at YorkSame topicHate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionFrench-language works237,207