This paper investigates hybrid intelligence and collaboration between researchers of sexism and Large Language Models (LLMs), with afour-component pipeline. First, nine sexism researchers answer questions about their knowledge of sexism and of LLMs. They then participate in two interactive experiments involving an LLM (GPT3.5). The first experiment has experts assessing the model’s knowledgeabout sexism and suitability for use in research. The second experiment tasks them with creating three different definitions of sexism: anexpert-written definition, an LLM-written one, and a co-created definition. Lastly, zero-shot classification experiments use the three definitions from each expert in a prompt template for sexism detection, evaluating GPT4o on 2.500 texts sampled from five sexism benchmarks. We then analyze the resulting 67.500 classification decisions. The LLM interactions lead to longer and more complex definitions of sexism. Expert-written definitions on average perform poorly compared to LLM-generated definitions. However, some experts do improve classification performance with their co-created definitions of sexism, also experts who are inexperienced in using LLMs.

Conspiracist narratives posit an omnipotent, evil group causing harm throughout domains. However, modern-day online conspiracism is often more erratic, consisting of loosely connected posts displaying a general anti-establishment attitude pervaded by negative emotions. We gather a dataset of 300 conspiracist and mainstream, Telegram channels in Italian and English and use the automatic extraction of entities and emotion detection to compare structural characteristics of both types of channels. We create a co-occurrence network of entities to analyze how the different types of channels introduce and use them across posts and topics. We find that conspiracist channels are characterized by anger. Moreover, co-occurrence networks of entities appearing in conspiracist channels are more dense. We theorize that this reflects a narrative structure where all actants are pushed into a single domain. Conspiracist channels disproportionately associate the most central group of entities with anger and fear. We do not find evidence that entities in conspiracist narratives occur across more topics. This could indicate an erratic type of online conspiracism where everything can be connected to everything and that is characterized by a high number of entities and high levels of anger.

Detecting harmful content is a crucial task in the landscape of NLP applications for Social Good, with hate speech being one of its most dangerous forms. But what do we mean by hate speech, how can we define it and how does prompting different definitions of hate speech affect model performance? The contribution of this work is twofold. At the theoretical level, we address the ambiguity surrounding hate speech by collecting and analyzing existing definitions from the literature. We organize these definitions into a taxonomy of 14 conceptual elements—building blocks that capture different aspects of hate speech definitions, such as references to the target of hate. At the experimental level, we employ the collection of definitions in a systematic zero-shot evaluation of three LLMs, on three hate speech datasets representing different types of data (synthetic, human-in-the-loop, and real-world). We find that choosing different definitions, i.e., definitions with a different degree of specificity in terms of encoded elements, impacts model performance, but this effect is not consistent across all architectures.