Bubble reachers and uncivil discourse in polarized online public sphere comments dataset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dataset contains comments in Portuguese and English gathered from various sources, such as news websites from Brazil and Canada, social media sites like Facebook and Reddit, e-commerce reviews, Wikipedia comments, among others. Each comment is accompanied by a "toxicity" score provided by the Perspective API. Disclaimer: This file includes words or language that is considered profane, vulgar or offensive by some readers. Due to the topic studied in this article, quoting offensive language is academically justified, but we nor PLOS in no way endorse the use of these words or the content of the quotes. Likewise, the quotes do not represent the opinions of us or that of PLOS, and we condemn online harassment and offensive language. Column information: preprocessed_text: the text after undergoing preprocessing steps; dataset: the given name of the dataset; source: the dataset's source name; dataset_source: a combination of the dataset name with its source to facilitate data aggregation tasks; TOXICITY: a continuous score between 0.0 and 1.0 provided by the Perspective API. In addition to the comments, there is a spreadsheet containing analyses referenced in the article associated with this dataset.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.026 |
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".