Data Exploration and Classification of News Article Reliability: Deep Learning Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, we are being exposed to large amounts of information each day. This "infodemic" is defined by the World Health Organization as the mass spread of misleading or false information during a pandemic. This spread of misinformation during the infodemic ultimately leads to misunderstandings of public health orders or direct opposition against public policies. Although there have been efforts to combat misinformation spread, current manual fact-checking methods are insufficient to combat the infodemic. Objective: We propose the use of natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML) techniques to build a model that can be used to identify unreliable news articles online. Methods: First, we preprocessed the ReCOVery data set to obtain 2029 English news articles tagged with COVID-19 keywords from January to May 2020, which are labeled as reliable or unreliable. Data exploration was conducted to determine major differences between reliable and unreliable articles. We built an ensemble deep learning model using the body text, as well as features, such as sentiment, Empath-derived lexical categories, and readability, to classify the reliability. Results: We found that reliable news articles have a higher proportion of neutral sentiment, while unreliable articles have a higher proportion of negative sentiment. Additionally, our analysis demonstrated that reliable articles are easier to read than unreliable articles, in addition to having different lexical categories and keywords. Our new model was evaluated to achieve the following performance metrics: 0.906 area under the curve (AUC), 0.835 specificity, and 0.945 sensitivity. These values are above the baseline performance of the original ReCOVery model. Conclusions: This paper identified novel differences between reliable and unreliable news articles; moreover, the model was trained using state-of-the-art deep learning techniques. We aim to be able to use our findings to help researchers and the public audience more easily identify false information and unreliable media in their everyday lives.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".