Gendered and Racialized Online Incivility in Four Dimensions
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
Candidates for political office frequently face online incivility and abuse. Research consistently finds that incivility and abuse can hinder the full political participation for women, and especially racialized women. However, there are competing theories and contradictory findings about precisely how gender and race shape online incivility. Much research focuses on how gender and race affect the volume of uncivil messages. This chapter extends that work to highlight other crucial dimensions of online incivility. We propose a framework to encompass all relevant characteristics of online incivility, which include: (1) frequency of incivility, (2) qualitative forms, (3) targeting and distribution, and (4) interaction with offline discrimination and threats. This emerged from an analysis of 969,308 tweets from the 2019 Canadian election and in-depth interviews with 31 candidates and campaign staff. We show that while candidates’ gender and race do not necessarily predict the volume of online incivility, women and racialized candidates do face more misogynist and racialized incivility. We also find some misogynist and racist content is directed at prominent male and/or white candidates’ accounts in apparent efforts to disseminate these discourses more broadly. Finally, given the realities of online abuse in Canada, this chapter suggests how to better support candidates and politicians.
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 | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 it