File size: 2,290 Bytes
d8bef70 655984d d8bef70 655984d 7ce81ee afabe27 655984d |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 |
---
license: openrail
task_categories:
- text-classification
language:
- uk
size_categories:
- 1K<n<10K
---
## Ukrainian Binary Toxicity Classification Datasets Collected via Crowdsourcing
We filtered [Ukrainian Tweets dataset](https://github.com/saganoren/ukr-twi-corpus) with [Toloka.ai](https://toloka.ai/) platform corwdsourcing task. It contains of 2.5k toxic and 2.5k non-toxic texts.
This dataset is also a part of [textdetox/multilingual_toxicity_dataset](https://huggingface.co/datasets/textdetox/multilingual_toxicity_dataset).
## Citation
```
@inproceedings{dementieva-etal-2024-toxicity,
title = "Toxicity Classification in {U}krainian",
author = "Dementieva, Daryna and
Khylenko, Valeriia and
Babakov, Nikolay and
Groh, Georg",
editor = {Chung, Yi-Ling and
Talat, Zeerak and
Nozza, Debora and
Plaza-del-Arco, Flor Miriam and
R{\"o}ttger, Paul and
Mostafazadeh Davani, Aida and
Calabrese, Agostina},
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Online Abuse and Harms (WOAH 2024)",
month = jun,
year = "2024",
address = "Mexico City, Mexico",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2024.woah-1.19",
doi = "10.18653/v1/2024.woah-1.19",
pages = "244--255",
abstract = "The task of toxicity detection is still a relevant task, especially in the context of safe and fair LMs development. Nevertheless, labeled binary toxicity classification corpora are not available for all languages, which is understandable given the resource-intensive nature of the annotation process. Ukrainian, in particular, is among the languages lacking such resources. To our knowledge, there has been no existing toxicity classification corpus in Ukrainian. In this study, we aim to fill this gap by investigating cross-lingual knowledge transfer techniques and creating labeled corpora by: (i){\textasciitilde}translating from an English corpus, (ii){\textasciitilde}filtering toxic samples using keywords, and (iii){\textasciitilde}annotating with crowdsourcing. We compare LLMs prompting and other cross-lingual transfer approaches with and without fine-tuning offering insights into the most robust and efficient baselines.",
}
``` |