Patterns of partisan toxicity and engagement reveal the common structure of online political communication across countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing studies of political polarization are often limited to a single country and one form of polarization, hindering a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon. Here we investigate patterns of polarization online across nine countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, Turkey, UK, USA), focusing on the structure of political interaction networks, the use of toxic language targeting out-groups, and how these factors relate to user engagement. First, we show that political interaction networks are structurally polarized on Twitter (currently X). Second, we reveal that out-group interactions, defined by the network, are more toxic than in-group interactions, indicative of affective polarization. Third, we show that out-group interactions receive lower engagement than in-group interactions. Finally, we identify a common ally-enemy structure in political interactions, show that political mentions are more toxic than apolitical mentions, and highlight that interactions between politically engaged accounts are limited and rarely reciprocated. These results hold across countries and represent a step towards a stronger cross-country understanding of polarization. Identifying patterns of polarization is important for understanding its root cause. Here, using Twitter data from 9 countries, the authors show that out-group mentions use more toxic language than than in-group mentions, and political mentions are more toxic than apolitical mentions.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".