Longitudinal abuse and sentiment analysis of Hollywood movie dialogues using language models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decades, there has been an increase in the prevalence of abusive and violent content in Hollywood movies. In this study, we use language models to explore the longitudinal abuse and sentiment analysis of Hollywood Oscar and blockbuster movie dialogues from 1950 to 2024. We provide an analysis of subtitles for over a thousand movies, which are categorised into four genres. We employ fine-tuned language models to examine the trends and shifts in emotional and abusive content over the past seven decades. Findings reveal significant temporal changes in movie dialogues, which reflect broader social and cultural influences. Overall, the emotional tendencies in the films are diverse, and the detection of abusive content also exhibits significant fluctuations. The results show a gradual rise in abusive content in recent decades, reflecting social norms and regulatory policy changes. Genres such as thrillers still present a higher frequency of abusive content that emphasises the ongoing narrative role of violence and conflict. At the same time, underlying positive emotions such as humour and optimism remain prevalent in most of the movies. Furthermore, the gradual increase of abusive content in movie dialogues has been significant over the last two decades, where Oscar-nominated movies overtook the top ten blockbusters. • We use Large Language Models (LLMs) for abuse and sentiment analysis of Hollywood movie dialogues. • We analyze subtitles for over a thousand movies to examine the trends and shifts in emotional and abusive content. • Our findings reveal significant temporal changes in movie dialogues, which reflect broader social and cultural influences. • We found a gradual rise in abusive content in recent decades, reflecting social norms and regulatory policy changes. • Abuse in Oscar-nominated movies overtook the top ten blockbusters in last two decades.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".