MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Understanding the Landscape of Online Deception

2020· book-chapter· en· W3008641751 on OpenAlex
Hicham Hage, Esma Aı̈meur, Amel Guedidi

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

VenueAdvances in media, entertainment and the arts (AMEA) book series · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMisinformation and Its Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeceptionMisinformationFake newsSocial mediaInternet privacyComputer scienceComputer securityPsychologyWorld Wide WebSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While fake and distorted information has been part of our history, new information and communication technologies tremendously increased its reach and proliferation speed. Indeed, in current days, fake news has become a global issue, prompting reactions from both researchers and legislators in an attempt to solve this problem. However, fake news and misinformation are part of the larger landscape of online deception. Specifically, the purpose of this chapter is to present an overview of online deception to better frame and understand the problem of fake news. In detail, this chapter offers a brief introduction to social networking sites, highlights the major factors that render individuals more susceptible to manipulation and deception, detail common manipulation and deception techniques and how they are actively used in online attacks as well as their common countermeasures. The chapter concludes with a discussion on the double role or artificial intelligence in countering as well as creating fake news.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.243 · 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