MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2738441747 · doi:10.1108/lht-03-2017-0062

Fake news: belief in post-truth

2017· article· en· W2738441747 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary Hi Tech · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMisinformation and Its Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOriginalityValue (mathematics)Fake newsInternet privacyComputer scienceUploadNews valuesSituatedInformation literacyFlaggingNews aggregatorPublic relationsNews mediaWorld Wide WebAdvertisingSociologyPolitical scienceMedia studiesBusinessLawHistoryArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to illustrate that the current efforts to combat the epidemic of fake news – compiling lists of fake news sites, flagging stories as having been disputed as “fake,” downloading plug-ins to detect fake news – show a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. Design/methodology/approach This paper explores the plummeting believability ratings in conventional news outlets, as well as current efforts to combat fake news. These concepts are situated in the post-truth era, in which news is upsold on the notion of belief and opinion. Findings This paper finds that, in combination with a general mistrust of all news, a fundamental flaw in the system of clicks-as-reward allows fake news and other clickbait to gain unobstructed virality. Originality/value Fake news is a widely discussed topic right now. As this is primarily an issue of information literacy, library and information professionals need to understand, discuss, and address this issue as one that is directly related to the profession.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.297 · 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