Are You a Cyborg, Bot or Human?—A Survey on Detecting Fake News Spreaders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the major components of Societal Digitalization is Online social networks (OSNs). OSNs can expose people to different popular trends in various aspects of life and alter people’s beliefs, behaviors, and decisions and communication. Social bots and malicious users are the significant sources for spreading misinformation on social media and can pose serious cyber threats in society. The degree of similarity of user profiles of a cyber bot and a malicious user spreading fake news is so great that it is very difficult to differentiate both based on their attributes. Over the years, researchers have attempted to find a way to mitigate this problem. However, the detection of fake news spreaders across OSNs remains a challenge. In this paper, we have provided a comprehensive survey of the state of art methods for detecting malicious users and bots based on different features proposed in our novel taxonomy. We have also aimed to avert the crucial problem of fake news detection by discussing several key challenges and potential future research areas to help researchers who are new to this field.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".