Towards a Comprehensive Taxonomy of Online Abusive Language Informed by Machine Learning
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 proliferation of abusive language in online communications has posed significant risks to the health and wellbeing of individuals and communities. The growing concern regarding online abuse and its consequences necessitates methods for identifying and mitigating harmful content and facilitating continuous monitoring, moderation, and early intervention. Achieving these goals requires a comprehensive and unified framework that captures the multifaceted nature of abusive language. This paper presents a taxonomy for distinguishing key characteristics of abusive language within online text. Our approach uses a systematic method for taxonomy development, integrating classification systems of 18 existing multi-label datasets to capture key characteristics relevant to online abusive language classification. The resulting taxonomy is hierarchical and faceted, comprising 5 categories and 17 dimensions. It classifies various facets of online abuse, including context, target, intensity, directness, and theme of abuse. This shared understanding can lead to more cohesive efforts, facilitate knowledge exchange, and accelerate progress in the field of online abuse detection and mitigation among researchers, policy makers, online platform owners, and other stakeholders.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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