Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Twitter, there is a rising trend in abusive behavior which often leads to incivility. This trend is affecting users mentally and as a result they tend to leave Twitter and other such social networking sites thus depleting the active user base. In this paper, we study factors associated with incivility. We observe that the act of incivility is highly correlated with the opinion differences between the account holder (i.e., the user writing the incivil tweet) and the target (i.e., the user for whom the incivil tweet is meant for or targeted), toward a named entity. We introduce a character level CNN model and incorporate the entity-specific sentiment information for efficient incivility detection which significantly outperforms multiple baseline methods achieving an impressive accuracy of 93.3% (4.9% improvement over the best baseline). In a post-hoc analysis, we also study the behavioral aspects of the targets and account holders and try to understand the reasons behind the incivility incidents. Interestingly, we observe that there are strong signals of repetitions in incivil behavior. In particular, we find that there are a significant fraction of account holders who act as repeat offenders - attacking the targets even more than 10 times. Similarly, there are also targets who get targeted multiple times. In general, the targets are found to have higher reputation scores than the account holders.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.016 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".