Despite the recent success of deep transfer learning approaches in NLP, there is a lack of quantitative studies demonstrating the gains these models offer in low-shot text classification tasks over existing paradigms. Deep transfer learning approaches such as BERT and ULMFiT demonstrate that they can beat state-of-the-art results on larger datasets, however when one has only 100-1000 labelled examples per class, the choice of approach is less clear, with classical machine learning and deep transfer learning representing valid options. This paper compares the current best transfer learning approach with top classical machine learning approaches on a trinary sentiment classification task to assess the best paradigm. We find that BERT, representing the best of deep transfer learning, is the best performing approach, outperforming top classical machine learning algorithms by 9.7 on average when trained with 100 examples per class, narrowing to 1.8 at 1000 labels per class. We also show the robustness of deep transfer learning in moving across domains, where the maximum loss in accuracy is only 0.7 in similar domain tasks and 3.2 cross domain, compared to classical machine learning which loses up to 20.6 .
Cyberbullying is becoming a major concern in online environments with troubling consequences. However, most of the technical studies have focused on the detection of cyberbullying through identifying harassing comments rather than preventing the incidents by detecting the bullies. In this work we study the automatic detection of bully users on YouTube. We compare three types of automatic detection: an expert system, supervised machine learning models, and a hybrid type combining the two. All these systems assign a score indicating the level of “bulliness” of online bullies. We demonstrate that the expert system outperforms the machine learning models. The hybrid classifier shows an even better performance.  A key challenge for automatic hate-speech detection on social media is the separation of hate speech from other instances of offensive language. Lexical detection methods tend to have low precision because they classify all messages containing particular terms as hate speech and previous work using supervised learning has failed to distinguish between the two categories. We used a crowd-sourced hate speech lexicon to collect tweets containing hate speech keywords. We use crowd-sourcing to label a sample of these tweets into three categories: those containing hate speech, only offensive language, and those with neither. We train a multi-class classifier to distinguish between these different categories. Close analysis of the predictions and the errors shows when we can reliably separate hate speech from other offensive language and when this differentiation is more difficult. We find that racist and homophobic tweets are more likely to be classified as hate speech but that sexist tweets are generally classified as offensive. Tweets without explicit hate keywords are also more difficult to classify.