MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Automatic deception detection: Methods for finding fake news

2015· article· en· W2410465342 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMisinformation and Its Impacts
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsDeceptionVettingFake newsComputer scienceFlaggingCertaintyTypologyData scienceArtificial intelligenceInternet privacyComputer securityPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This research surveys the current state‐of‐the‐art technologies that are instrumental in the adoption and development of fake news detection. “Fake news detection” is defined as the task of categorizing news along a continuum of veracity, with an associated measure of certainty. Veracity is compromised by the occurrence of intentional deceptions. The nature of online news publication has changed, such that traditional fact checking and vetting from potential deception is impossible against the flood arising from content generators, as well as various formats and genres. The paper provides a typology of several varieties of veracity assessment methods emerging from two major categories – linguistic cue approaches (with machine learning), and network analysis approaches. We see promise in an innovative hybrid approach that combines linguistic cue and machine learning, with network‐based behavioral data. Although designing a fake news detector is not a straightforward problem, we propose operational guidelines for a feasible fake news detecting system.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it