REVIEW 2 cited by
A Dataset for the Detection of Dehumanizing Language
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
A Dataset for the Detection of Dehumanizing Language
read the original abstract
Dehumanization is a mental process that enables the exclusion and ill treatment of a group of people. In this paper, we present two data sets of dehumanizing text, a large, automatically collected corpus and a smaller, manually annotated data set. Both data sets include a combination of political discourse and dialogue from movie subtitles. Our methods give us a broad and varied amount of dehumanization data to work with, enabling further exploratory analysis and automatic classification of dehumanization patterns. Both data sets will be publicly released.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Do We Still Need Humans in the Loop? Comparing Human and LLM Annotation in Active Learning for Hostility Detection
LLM annotation can replace human labels for hostility detection with comparable F1 at much lower cost, but active learning adds little value and error structures differ systematically.
-
Do We Still Need Humans in the Loop? Comparing Human and LLM Annotation in Active Learning for Hostility Detection
With a two-question interface, full-pool LLM annotation (GPT-5.2 or Qwen3.5) beats human-supervised classifiers for anti-immigrant hostility detection at ~1/10 cost; AL does not reliably beat random sampling.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.