MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Retracted: Spam Detection for Social Media Networks Using Machine Learning

2022· article· en· W4293087581 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
V Niranjani, Y Agalya, K Charunandhini, K Gayathri, R Gayathri

Post-publication record

OpenAlex flags this work as retracted, but it carries no matching Retraction Watch record in this frame.

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 8th International Conference on Advanced Computing and Communication Systems (ICACCS) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpam and Phishing Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpammingHarmInternet privacyPurchasingForum spamProduct (mathematics)Computer scienceThe InternetOrder (exchange)PublishingProfit (economics)Competition (biology)Social mediaComputer securitySpambotAdvertisingBusinessWorld Wide WebMarketingPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People frequently examine internet product reviews before purchasing a product. More merchants aim to deceive users in order to earn a profit. Because customers are misled in this way, it's critical to be aware of and delete fraudulent reviews. This study examines machine learning-based spam detection approaches and discusses their general perspectives and outcomes. Knowing how important customer reviews are to a product's success, marketers frequently try to fool customers by publishing phoney remarks. Merchants have the option of posting updates themselves or hiring others to do so for them. Comment or review spam is the practice of sending out false updates. Spam senders might be recruited to leave favorable or negative reviews that harm competitor business. By 2020, the Canadian Competition Bureau gave a warning to its citizens officially, stating that they should be careful of fraudulent reviews and estimating that one off three of online reviews is fake. Poll fiction taken from more than twenty-five thousand participants by 2020 claims that more than seventy percent of consumers trust online reviews. As a result, spam reviews are a major source of concern nowadays. Based on the goal of the proposed techniques, the majority of the published articles dealing with this subject can be segregated into three. Tactics can be used to get spam reviews, individual spam senders, or spams sent by groups. Because the spam sent in group methods haven't been thoroughly investigated; they aren't discussed in this work. Spam detection is a machine learning issue that requires supervision. This means you'll need to give your machine learning model a set of spam and ham message examples and tell it to look for the relevant patterns that distinguish the two groups. Most email service providers have large databases of labelled emails.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2022 8th International Conference on Advanced Computing and Communication Systems (ICACCS)Same topicSpam and Phishing DetectionFrench-language works237,207