What makes deceptive online reviews? A linguistic analysis perspective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract With the rapid development of e-commerce, online reviews have become an important information source for consumers and e-commerce businesses. While the negative impact of deceptive online reviews has been well recognized, more research has to be done to help understand the linguistic manifestations of deceptive online reviews in order to help identify deceptive reviews and help increase the value and sustainability of e-commerce businesses. This study explores the linguistic manifestations of deceptive online reviews based on the reality monitoring theory, and then uses the data from Amazon.com online product reviews to examine perceptual cues, affective cues, detail cues, relevance cues, and cognitive cues of various deceptive online reviews. The results show that reviews for emotional catharsis are more extreme with affective cues, while perfunctory reviews often lack details with fewer prepositions and adjectives. In addition, deceptive reviews often lack relevance cues when these reviews are made to obtain the rewards provided by the vendors while paid posters tend to use more cognitive cues in deceptive reviews. Moreover, deceptive online reviews under all motives often lack perceptual cues. These findings provide a deeper understanding of the linguistic manifestations of deceptive online reviews and provide significant managerial implications for e-commerce businesses to employ high-quality online reviews for sustainable growth.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 it