Social Bots and the Spread of Disinformation in Social Media: The Challenges of Artificial Intelligence
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
Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) is creating a revolution in business and society at large, as well as challenges for organizations. AI‐powered social bots can sense, think and act on social media platforms in ways similar to humans. The challenge is that social bots can perform many harmful actions, such as providing wrong information to people, escalating arguments, perpetrating scams and exploiting the stock market. As such, an understanding of different kinds of social bots and their authors’ intentions is vital from the management perspective. Drawing from the actor‐network theory (ANT), this study investigates human and non‐human actors’ roles in social media, particularly Twitter. We use text mining and machine learning techniques, and after applying different pre‐processing techniques, we applied the bag of words model to a dataset of 30,000 English‐language tweets. The present research is among the few studies to use a theory‐based focus to look, through experimental research, at the role of social bots and the spread of disinformation in social media. Firms can use our tool for the early detection of harmful social bots before they can spread misinformation on social media about their organizations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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