MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945468986 · doi:10.1590/1982-25542019239035

Cascatas de Fake News Políticas: um estudo de caso no Twitter

2019· article· pt· W2945468986 on OpenAlexaff
Raquel Recuero, Anatoliy Gruzd

Bibliographic record

VenueGaláxia (São Paulo) · 2019
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resumo O presente artigo busca debater, por meio de estudo de caso, as cascatas das chamadas fake news de cunho político no Twitter. Para tanto, examinam-se fake news que circularam durante dois eventos, o julgamento e a prisão do ex-presidente Lula. Para tal análise, utilizam-se métodos de coleta de dados automatizados, análise de redes e uma análise qualitativa. Os principais resultados apontam para uma circulação limitada dessas notícias, principalmente dentro de núcleos ideológicos favoráveis e uma forte ação de determinados tipos de usuários no seu espalhamento.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations67
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGaláxia (São Paulo)Same topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207