MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385785343 · doi:10.25236/ijfs.2023.050811

Social Media Companies’ Moderation of UGC and Journalistic Content Published on Their Platforms

2023· article· en· W4385785343 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jianing Cong

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Frontiers in Sociology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial mediaVettingModerationSocial media optimizationAdvertisingQuarter (Canadian coin)User-generated contentPolitical scienceMedia studiesInternet privacySociologyBusinessHistoryPsychologyComputer scienceLawSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social media plays a vital role in people's lives today, and its use is widespread. According to a data survey from Statista Research, Facebook had approximately 2.93 billion monthly active users as of the first quarter of 2022. As of January 2022, there were 76.9 million Twitter users in the US. With the widespread use of social media, news content and UGC on social media are used by different people to spread information. Many negative comments or news, such as hate speech, defamation, and fake news. The article analyses the problems faced by the spread of hate speech through social media from three aspects. The article begins by analysing the impact of hate speech and defamation on people. This is followed by a discussion of the impact of fake news from social media on people. Finally, discussion of social media companies vetting the UGC and news content posted on that platform.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.231 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Frontiers in SociologySame topicHate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionFrench-language works237,207