A Bootstrapped Approach for Abusive Intent Detection in Social Media Content
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The proliferation of Internet connected devices continues to result in the creation of massive collections of human generated content from websites such as social media. Unfortunately, some of these sites are used by criminal or terrorist organizations for recruitment or to spread rhetoric. By analyzing this content, it is possible to gain insights into the future actions of the writers. This information can support organizations in taking proactive measures to modify or stop said actions from taking place. The textual feature of interest is the expression of abusive intent, which can be thought of as a plan to carry out a malicious action. The proposed approach independently detects abuse and intent in documents, then computes a joint prediction for the document. Abusive language detection is a well-studied problem, which enabled a model to be trained using supervised learning. The intent detection model requires a semi-supervised technique since no labelled datasets exist. To do this, an initial collection of labels was generated using a linguistic model. These labels were then used to co-train a statistical and deep learning model. Using crowd-sourced labels, the abuse and intent models were found to have accuracies of 95% and 80%, respectively. The joint predictions were then used to prioritize documents for manual assessment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".