ArticleScientific reports2022
Deep learning for religious and continent-based toxic content detection and classification.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Extraction of use case diagram elements using natural language processing and network science.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With time, numerous online communication platforms have emerged that allow people to express themselves, increasing the dissemination of toxic languages, such as racism, sexual harassment, and other negative behaviors that are not accepted in polite society. As a result, toxic language identification in online communication has emerged as a critical application of natural language processing. Numerous academic and industrial researchers have recently researched toxic language identification using machine learning algorithms. However, Nontoxic comments, including particular identification descriptors, such as Muslim, Jewish, White, and Black, were assigned unrealistically high toxicity ratings in several machine learning models. This research analyzes and compares modern deep learning algorithms for multilabel toxic comments classification. We explore two scenarios: the first is a multilabel classification of Religious toxic comments, and the second is a multilabel classification of race or toxic ethnicity comments with various word embeddings (GloVe, Word2vec, and FastText) without word embeddings using an ordinary embedding layer. Experiments show that the CNN model produced the best results for classifying multilabel toxic comments in both scenarios. We compared the outcomes of these modern deep learning model performances in terms of multilabel evaluation metrics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.