Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Exploring Cross-Cultural Differences in English Hate Speech Annotations: From Dataset Construction to Analysis

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2308.16705 v3 pith:WNI4VNQC submitted 2023-08-31 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords crehatehatespeechcountriesdatasetanalysisannotationscross-cultural
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Warning: this paper contains content that may be offensive or upsetting. Most hate speech datasets neglect the cultural diversity within a single language, resulting in a critical shortcoming in hate speech detection. To address this, we introduce CREHate, a CRoss-cultural English Hate speech dataset. To construct CREHate, we follow a two-step procedure: 1) cultural post collection and 2) cross-cultural annotation. We sample posts from the SBIC dataset, which predominantly represents North America, and collect posts from four geographically diverse English-speaking countries (Australia, United Kingdom, Singapore, and South Africa) using culturally hateful keywords we retrieve from our survey. Annotations are collected from the four countries plus the United States to establish representative labels for each country. Our analysis highlights statistically significant disparities across countries in hate speech annotations. Only 56.2% of the posts in CREHate achieve consensus among all countries, with the highest pairwise label difference rate of 26%. Qualitative analysis shows that label disagreement occurs mostly due to different interpretations of sarcasm and the personal bias of annotators on divisive topics. Lastly, we evaluate large language models (LLMs) under a zero-shot setting and show that current LLMs tend to show higher accuracies on Anglosphere country labels in CREHate. Our dataset and codes are available at: https://github.com/nlee0212/CREHate

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. QUENCH: Measuring the gap between Indic and Non-Indic Contextual General Reasoning in LLMs

    cs.CL 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    QUENCH introduces a generation-based quiz benchmark with masked entities and rationales, and documents a consistent Indic-versus-non-Indic performance gap across seven LLMs.

  2. Socio-Culturally Aware Evaluation Framework for LLM-Based Content Moderation

    cs.CL 2024-12 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A persona-based generation pipeline creates culturally varied content moderation test sets, but its central 'greater challenge' claim depends on unvalidated synthetic labels and unreleased data.

  3. A Survey on Automatic Online Hate Speech Detection in Low-Resource Languages

    cs.CL 2024-11 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A survey cataloging datasets, features, and machine-learning methods for automatic hate speech detection in low-resource languages, organized by world region, with an overview of open challenges.

Pith tools