ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2024
Detecting cyberbullying using deep learning techniques: a pre-trained glove and focal loss technique.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The power of deep learning in simplifying feature selection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Review
- Utilizing machine learning to analyze trunk movement patterns in women with postpartum low back pain.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Terrorism group prediction using feature combination and BiGRU with self-attention mechanism.PeerJ. Computer science · 2024Article
- A novel device-free Wi-Fi indoor localization using a convolutional neural network based on residual attention.PeerJ. Computer science · 2024Article
- Leveraging deep learning to combat cyberbullying on social media.Industrial psychiatry journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates the effectiveness of various deep learning and classical machine learning techniques in identifying instances of cyberbullying. The study compares the performance of five classical machine learning algorithms and three deep learning models. The data undergoes pre-processing, including text cleaning, tokenization, stemming, and stop word removal. The experiment uses accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score metrics to evaluate the performance of the algorithms on the dataset. The results show that the proposed technique achieves high accuracy, precision, and F1 score values, with the Focal Loss algorithm achieving the highest accuracy of 99% and the highest precision of 86.72%. However, the recall values were relatively low for most algorithms, indicating that they struggled to identify all relevant data. Additionally, the study proposes a technique using a convolutional neural network with a bidirectional long short-term memory layer, trained on a pre-processed dataset of tweets using GloVe word embeddings and the focal loss function. The model achieved high accuracy, precision, and F1 score values, with the GRU algorithm achieving the highest accuracy of 97.0% and the NB algorithm achieving the highest precision of 96.6%.
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.