Xenophobic Bullying and COVID-19: An Exploration Using Big Data and Qualitative Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extant literature suggests that xenophobic bullying is intensified by isolated national or global events; however, the analysis of such occurrences is methodologically limited to the use of self-reported data. Examining disclosures of racist bullying episodes enables us to contextualize various perspectives that are shared online and generate insights on how COVID-19 has exacerbated the issue. Moreover, understanding the rationale and characteristics present in xenophobic bullying may have important implications for our social wellbeing, mental health, and inclusiveness as a global community both in the short and long term. This study employs a mixed-method approach using Big Data techniques as well as qualitative analysis of xenophobic bullying disclosures on Twitter following the spread of COVID-19. The data suggests that about half of the sample represented xenophobic bullying. The qualitative analysis also found that 64% of xenophobic bullying-related tweets referred to occasions that perpetuated racist stereotypes. Relatedly, the rationale for almost 75% of xenophobic bullying incidents was due to being Chinese or Asian. The findings of this study, coupled with anti-hate reports from around the world, are used to suggest multipronged policy interventions and considerations of how social media sites such as Twitter can be used to curb the spread of misinformation and xenophobic bullying.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".