Detecting High-Engaging Breaking News Rumors in Social Media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Users from all over the world increasingly adopt social media for newsgathering, especially during breaking news. Breaking news is an unexpected event that is currently developing. Early stages of breaking news are usually associated with lots of unverified information, i.e., rumors. Efficiently detecting and acting upon rumors in a timely fashion is of high importance to minimize their harmful effects. Yet, not all rumors have the potential to spread in social media. High-engaging rumors are those written in a manner that ensures achievement of the highest prevalence among the recipients. They are difficult to detect, spread very fast, and can cause serious damage to society. In this article, we propose a new multi-task Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) attention-based neural network architecture to jointly learn the two tasks of breaking news rumors detection and breaking news rumors popularity prediction in social media. The proposed model learns the salient semantic similarities among important features for detecting high-engaging breaking news rumors and separates them from the rest of the input text. Extensive experiments on five real-life datasets of breaking news suggest that our proposed model outperforms all baselines and is capable of detecting breaking news rumors and predicting their future popularity with high accuracy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".