Fake Content
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automatic detection of fake content in social media such as Twitter is an enduring challenge. Technically, determining fake news on social media platforms is a straightforward binary classification problem. However, manually fact-checking even a small fraction of daily tweets would only be possible due to the sheer volume of daily tweets. To address this challenge, we crawled and crowdsourced one of the most extensive ground-truth datasets containing more than 180.000 labels from 2009 to 2022 for tweets with a 5-label and 3-label classification using Amazon Mechanical Turk. We utilized multiple levels of validation to ensure an accurate ground-truth benchmark dataset. We then created and implemented numerous machine learning and deep learning algorithms, such as different variations of BERT-based models, on the data to test the accuracy of real/fake tweet detection with both categories and determine which versions gave us the highest result metrics. Further analysis is performed on the dataset by explicitly utilizing the DBSCAN text clustering algorithm combined with the YAKE keyword creation algorithm to determine topics’ clustering and relationships. Finally, we analyzed each user in the dataset, determining their Bot Score, Credibility Score, and Influence Score for a better understanding of what type of Twitter user posts and their influence with each of their tweets, and if there were any underlying patterns to be drawn from each score concerning the truthfulness of the tweet. The experimental results illustrated profound improvement for models dealing with short-length text in solving a real-life problem, such as automatically detecting fake content in social media.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".