Is hate speech detection the solution the world wants?
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 machine learning (ML) research community has landed on automated hate speech detection as the vital tool in the mitigation of bad behavior online. However, it is not clear that this is a widely supported view outside of the ML world. Such a disconnect can have implications for whether automated detection tools are accepted or adopted. Here we lend insight into how other key stakeholders understand the challenge of addressing hate speech and the role automated detection plays in solving it. To do so, we develop and apply a structured approach to dissecting the discourses used by online platform companies, governments, and not-for-profit organizations when discussing hate speech. We find that, where hate speech mitigation is concerned, there is a profound disconnect between the computer science research community and other stakeholder groups-which puts progress on this important problem at serious risk. We identify urgent steps that need to be taken to incorporate computational researchers into a single, coherent, multistakeholder community that is working towards civil discourse online.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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