MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416598778 · doi:10.1177/00111287251384670

Approaches to Defining the “Hate Element” of a Behavior: A Data-Driven Typology

2025· article· en· W4416598778 on OpenAlexafffund
Matteo Vergani, John M. Betts, Barbara Perry, Steven M. Chermak, Joshua D. Freilich, Ryan Scrivens, Rouven Link

Bibliographic record

VenueCrime & Delinquency · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
FundersPublic Safety Canada
KeywordsTypologyDiversity (politics)Prejudice (legal term)Element (criminal law)Linguistic typologyPoison control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article addresses the proliferation of definitions and approaches used to characterize the hate element in behaviors motivated by hate, including hate crimes, hate speech, and behaviors motivated by prejudice against specific identities (e.g., homophobia, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia), and investigates whether these definitions cluster into distinct types. Using machine learning, we clustered 423 definitions from academic and gray literature in five languages between 1990 and 2021, based on 16 theoretically derived categories. The resulting typology captures the diversity of definitions from ten countries in North America, Europe, and Oceania, providing a comprehensive framework for understanding how the hate element is conceptualized in these contexts. The findings offer a basis for future research and may help inform policy responses to hate-motivated behaviors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0230.019
Science and technology studies0.0030.011
Scholarly communication0.0070.011
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrime & DelinquencySame topicHate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionFrench-language works237,207