Papers › Detecting Sexual Content at the Sentence Level in First Millennium Latin Texts

Detecting Sexual Content at the Sentence Level in First Millennium Latin Texts

25 Sep 2023arXiv:2309.14974archive 2025-07-28

Thibault Clérice

In this study, we propose to evaluate the use of deep learning methods for semantic classification at the sentence level to accelerate the process of corpus building in the field of humanities and linguistics, a traditional and time-consuming task. We introduce a novel corpus comprising around 2500 sentences spanning from 300 BCE to 900 CE including sexual semantics (medical, erotica, etc.). We evaluate various sentence classification approaches and different input embedding layers, and show that all consistently outperform simple token-based searches. We explore the integration of idiolectal and sociolectal metadata embeddings (centuries, author, type of writing), but find that it leads to overfitting. Our results demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach, achieving high precision and true positive rates (TPR) of respectively 70.60% and 86.33% using HAN. We evaluate the impact of the dataset size on the model performances (420 instead of 2013), and show that, while our models perform worse, they still offer a high enough precision and TPR, even without MLM, respectively 69% and 51%. Given the result, we provide an analysis of the attention mechanism as a supporting added value for humanists in order to produce more data.

PaperPDFCode

Code

lascivaroma/seligator officialmentioned in paperpytorch report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

SentenceSentence Classification

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections