MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386362804 · doi:10.33137/ijidi.v7i1/2.39409

Self-breeding Fake News

2023· article· en· W4386362804 on OpenAlexfundno aff
P R Biju, O. Gayathri

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Information Diversity & Inclusion (IJIDI) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMisinformation and Its Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsCasteSocial mediaFake newsHindutvaPoliticsThe InternetClass (philosophy)MicrobloggingPolitical scienceInternet privacySociologyMedia studiesWorld Wide WebComputer scienceLawArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies have found that artificial intelligence (AI) bots and cookies automate fake news in zones of social conflict such as race, religion, gender, and class. In this background, this paper investigates whether fake news is automated with the social structure unique to India. The research collected campaigning activities of political parties and politicians on the Internet but was limited to a select number of Facebook profiles, websites, hashtags, and Twitter profiles during India’s 2014 and 2019 general elections. Politicians and political parties on Twitter, Facebook and other websites formed the contact points where empirical data were collected in the research design. By reviewing hashtags such as #Nationwantsrammandir; #NaamVaapsi; #RamMandir; #AntiNationals; #caste; and #Hindutva, as well as fake social media accounts; discussion forums; and profiles of followers of politicians, the paper corroborated that bots, AI, and trolls serve fake news in the conflict zones of India and some forces are using it to perpetuate social divisions based on caste, class, religion, gender, and region. This paper argues that automated social media accounts spread false information that likely polarizes social conflicts in India.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Information Diversity & Inclusion (IJIDI)Same topicMisinformation and Its ImpactsFrench-language works237,207