Applications of machine learning for COVID-19 misinformation: a systematic review
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
The inflammable growth of misinformation on social media and other platforms during pandemic situations like COVID-19 can cause significant damage to the physical and mental stability of the people. To detect such misinformation, researchers have been applying various machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) techniques. The objective of this study is to systematically review, assess, and synthesize state-of-the-art research articles that have used different ML and DL techniques to detect COVID-19 misinformation. A structured literature search was conducted in the relevant bibliographic databases to ensure that the survey was solely centered on reproducible and high-quality research. We reviewed 43 papers that fulfilled our inclusion criteria out of 260 articles found from our keyword search. We have surveyed a complete pipeline of COVID-19 misinformation detection. In particular, we have identified various COVID-19 misinformation datasets and reviewed different data processing, feature extraction, and classification techniques to detect COVID-19 misinformation. In the end, the challenges and limitations in detecting COVID-19 misinformation using ML techniques and the future research directions are discussed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it