MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395956088 · doi:10.29173/cjfy30069

Break the Hate: A Survey of Youth Experiences with Hate and Violent Extremism Online

2024· article· en· W4395956088 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Henry Kerr, Michèle St-Amant, John McCoy

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Family and Youth / Le Journal Canadien de Famille et de la Jeunesse · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsViolent extremismHate crimeLove and hateCriminologyPsychologyPolitical sciencePsychoanalysisTerrorismLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the most prolific users of the Internet, youth are exposed to a diverse array of harmful content and experiences, including cyberbullying and sexual exploitation. What is less well understood is the impact of hate and violent extremism on youth in these online spaces. This study surveyed over 800 youth from Alberta, Canada, to identify where they most frequently encountered hateful and extremist content online, how they react to it, and what they believed were the most appropriate responses to these problems. This study adds to a growing literature which takes youth perspectives seriously in the study of this problem. Our study found that more than three-quarters of youth surveyed reported encountering hateful content, while more than two-thirds reported encountering extremist content. Our findings add to a growing debate on the relationship between identity factors and exposure. While our results indicate respondents who identify as female are more likely to report encountering extremist and hateful content than males, intersectionality factors shed new light on the patterns of online exposure among youth. Specifically, we found that the effect of gender is mediated by other identity factors, like being a visible minority or identifying as 2SLGBTQ+.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score0.882

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Family and Youth / Le Journal Canadien de Famille et de la JeunesseSame topicHate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionFrench-language works237,207