2012
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-29253-8_75
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Sentiment Analysis for Effective Detection of Cyber Bullying

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
44
0
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 72 publications
(46 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
1
44
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Typically, this involved the use of emotive keywords to perform sentiment analysis on the corpus and then using the discovered sentiment as an input to the detection process. With the exception of Nahar et al (2012), who used Probabilistic Latent Semantic Analysis (PLSA) to extract sentiment features from labelled bullying posts, all the studies in this group used a lexicon of emotive words to detect the polarity (negative, positive, or neutral) of sentiments expressed within the documents. The emotive words are often based on sources such as WordNet and its variations.…”
Section: Sentiment-based Featuresmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Typically, this involved the use of emotive keywords to perform sentiment analysis on the corpus and then using the discovered sentiment as an input to the detection process. With the exception of Nahar et al (2012), who used Probabilistic Latent Semantic Analysis (PLSA) to extract sentiment features from labelled bullying posts, all the studies in this group used a lexicon of emotive words to detect the polarity (negative, positive, or neutral) of sentiments expressed within the documents. The emotive words are often based on sources such as WordNet and its variations.…”
Section: Sentiment-based Featuresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Serra and Venter (2011) is the earliest study in our sample using network-based features; they used total time present online using a mobile phone as a feature in their detection method. Nahar et al (2012), Huang et al (2014), and NaliniPriya and Asswini (2015) used ego networks as features to improve detection. NaliniPriya and Asswini (2015) used the ego network to compute temporal changes in the relationships between users, and uses the detected changes within the detection process.…”
Section: Network-based Featuresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The work incorporated topic models such as PLSA [10] and LDA [3], features that are generated under pre-defined topics, and then only features under cyberbullying-like topics are selected [18,19]. Further, in order to identify predators and victims, users involved in cyberbullying messages are ranked as the most influential predators and the most offended victims through a graph model [19]. Dinakar et al broke down the detection of cyberbullying in to the sensitive-topics detection such as, sexuality, race, intelligence, and profanity.…”
Section: Cyberbullying Detectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nahar et al built a cyberbullying network graph with the users who had been previously labeled as cyber bullies and victims, then used a ranking method to identify the most active cyber bullies and victims [32,33]). Hosseinmardi et al [34,35] collected data from Instagram with snowball sampling method and complemented textual information (LIWC2015) with human-labeled image content tags for an enhanced cyberbullying detection model.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%