Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 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

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

classification cs.CL cs.AI
keywords crehatehatespeechcountriesdatasetanalysisannotationscross-cultural
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
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)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. CATCH-ME if you RAG: a dataset of Contextually Annotated multi-Turn Counterspeech against Hate and Misinformation Exchanges

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    Presents a new expert-curated dataset of multi-turn counterspeech dialogues in five languages targeting hate against seven groups, with span annotations linking to verified external knowledge for RAG applications.

  2. Assisted Counterspeech Writing at the Crossroads of Hate Speech and Misinformation

    cs.CL 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    LLMs generate adequate counterspeech for co-occurring hate and misinformation in 40% of cases, with a mixed knowledge strategy from fact-checkers and NGOs proving most effective after expert revision.