2019 IEEE 10th International Conference on Awareness Science and Technology (iCAST) 2019
DOI: 10.1109/icawst.2019.8923186
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cyberbullying Detection on Twitter using Multiple Textual Features

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Other common features usually considered for the detection of cyberbullying are profanity [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ] or sentiment analysis [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 ].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other common features usually considered for the detection of cyberbullying are profanity [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ] or sentiment analysis [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 ].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They discovered that indirect speech acts, usually manifesting as one's adoption of the interrogative mood, were more common in Eastern settings than direct speech acts. Zhang et al (2019) found that bullying words were useful for classifying cyberbullying in Japan, with informal language and emerging words in tweets affecting the results of sentiment analysis. Research from Pakistan showed that cyberbullies attacked the victim's appearance through comparisons and certain discourse markers (e.g., capitalization, punctuation, and mathematical symbols; Rafi, 2019).…”
Section: Linguistic Features Of Cyberbullyingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Both methods are used to learn the usage context of a word. Global vector space [20], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30] Distance Measures Edit-Distance [20] Word Embedding Word2Vec [31], [32], [28], [33], [34], [35], [30], [36], [37], [38], [39] Skip-gram [25] CBoW [25], [32] BoW [40], [31], [33], [34] TF-IDF [26], [27] FastText [25], [36] GLoVe [41], [42], [37] LSHWE [37] Vulgarity/Hate Features [43], [25], [32], [33], [44] Sentiment Sentiment Analysis [27], [45], [32], [33], [41], [46], [30], [39] User Profile [27],…”
Section: Word Embedding Techniquesmentioning
confidence: 99%