MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Examination of Online Hate and Harassment Targeting Immigrants

2023· article· en· W4396542874 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sina Keshvadi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarassmentImmigrationComputer scienceComputer securityInternet privacyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the modern digital era, online harassment, hate, and abuse have emerged as significant challenges affecting people across the globe. Immigrants, in particular, encounter unique cyber threats due to cultural differences, language barriers, limited social networks, and unfamiliarity with local laws and cyber regulations. This research focuses on examining the issue of online hate and harassment targeting immigrants within online communities. Through a comprehensive online survey involving 62 immigrants in Canada, we investigated their experiences in three key areas: Social Media Usage, Hate and Harassment Experiences, and Awareness. The findings indicate that immigrants have a high level of social media engagement (around 97%), but they also face a higher incidence of online abuse compared to global and US-only samples. Approximately 58% of the participants said they experienced online abuse, which included offensive name-calling (35%), stalking (6%), and sexual harassment (19%). Despite their active online presence, a significant portion of participants (72%) demonstrated a lack of familiarity with the specific Canadian laws pertaining to online harassment, and 10% had no knowledge of these laws at all. In this study we also examine recent platform solutions and navigates the challenges of balancing privacy, accountability, moderation, and free speech in protecting users in cyber spaces.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designOther design
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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionFrench-language works237,207