What is Beneath Misogyny: Misogynous Memes Classification and Explanation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Memes are popular in the modern world and are distributed primarily for entertainment. However, harmful ideologies such as misogyny can be propagated through innocent-looking memes. The detection and understanding of why a meme is misogynous is a research challenge due to its multimodal nature (image and text) and its nuanced manifestations across different societal contexts. We introduce a novel multimodal approach, namely, MM-Misogyny to detect, categorize, and explain misogynistic content in memes. MM-Misogyny processes text and image modalities separately and unifies them into a multimodal context through a cross-attention mechanism. The resulting multimodal context is then easily processed for labeling, categorization, and explanation via a classifier and Large Language Model (LLM). The evaluation of the proposed model is performed on a newly curated dataset (What’s Beneath Misogynous Stereotyping (WBMS)) created by collecting misogynous memes from cyberspace and categorizing them into four categories, namely, Kitchen, Leadership, Working, and Shopping. The model not only detects and classifies misogyny, but also provides a granular understanding of how misogyny operates in operates in domains of life. The results demonstrate the superiority of our approach compared to existing methods. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/Misogyny.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".