PHEME dataset of rumours and non-rumours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dataset contains a collection of Twitter rumours and non-rumours posted during breaking news. The five breaking news provided with the dataset are as follows:<br>* Charlie Hebdo: 458 rumours (22.0%) and 1,621 non-rumours (78.0%).* Ferguson: 284 rumours (24.8%) and 859 non-rumours (75.2%).* Germanwings Crash: 238 rumours (50.7%) and 231 non-rumours (49.3%).* Ottawa Shooting: 470 rumours (52.8%) and 420 non-rumours (47.2%).* Sydney Siege: 522 rumours (42.8%) and 699 non-rumours (57.2%).<br>The data is structured as follows. Each event has a directory, with two subfolders, rumours and non-rumours. These two folders have folders named with a tweet ID. The tweet itself can be found on the 'source-tweet' directory of the tweet in question, and the directory 'reactions' has the set of tweets responding to that source tweet.<br>This dataset was used in the paper 'Learning Reporting Dynamics during Breaking News for Rumour Detection in Social Media' for rumour detection. For more details, please refer to the paper.<br>License: The annotations are provided under a CC-BY license, while Twitter retains the ownership and rights of the content of the tweets.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".