MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997310542 · doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2019.12.004

The battle between fake news and science

2019· article· en· W2997310542 on OpenAlexaff
Luke Harper, Katherine W. Herbst, Darius Bägli, Martin Kaefer, Goedele M.A. Beckers, Magdalena Fossum, Nicolas Kalfa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Urology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMisinformation and Its Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
FundersNovo Nordisk Fonden
KeywordsMisinformationDisinformationCredibilityFake newsBattleTrustworthinessMedicineInternet privacyScopusLibrary scienceSocial mediaMEDLINEWorld Wide WebComputer scienceComputer securityPolitical scienceLawHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fake news is fabricated information that mimics news media content yet lacks the editorial norms and processes that ensure accuracy and credibility [ [1] Lazer D.M.J. Baum M.A. Benkler Y. Berinsky A.J. Greenhill K.M. Menczer F. et al. The science of fake news. Science. 2018 Mar 9; 359: 1094-1096 Crossref PubMed Scopus (1254) Google Scholar ]. This includes misinformation (misleading information) and disinformation (false information purposely spread to deceive people).

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.468
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric UrologySame topicMisinformation and Its ImpactsFrench-language works237,207