An Ensemble Framework for Spam Detection on Social Media Platforms
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As various review sites grow in popularity and begin to hold more sway in consumer preferences, spam detection has become a burgeoning field of research. While there have been various attempts to resolve the issue of spam on the open web, specifically as it relates to reviews, there does not yet exist an adaptive and robust framework out there today. We attempt to address this issue in a domain-specific manner, choosing to apply it to Yelp.com first. We believe that while certain processes do exist to filter out spam reviews for Yelp, we have a comprehensive framework that can be extended to other applications of spam detection as well. Furthermore, our framework exhibited a robust performance even when trained on small datasets, providing an approach for practitioners to conduct spam detection when the available data is inadequate. To the best of our knowledge, our framework uses the most number of extracted features and models in order to finely tune our results. In this paper, we will show how various sets of online review features add value to the final performance of our proposed framework, as well as how different machine learning models perform regarding detecting spam reviews.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it