Geo-political bias in fake news detection AI: the case of affect
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 There have been massive advances in AI technologies towards addressing the contemporary challenge of fake news identification. However, these technologies, as observed widely, have not had the same kind or depth in impact across global societies. In particular, the AI scholarship in fake news detection arguably has not been as beneficial or appropriate for Global South, bringing geo-political bias into the picture. While it is often natural to think of data bias as the potential reason for geo-political bias, other factors could be much more important in being more latent, and thus less visible. In this commentary, we investigate as to how the facet of affect, comprising emotions and sentiments, could be a potent vehicle for geo-political biases in AI. We highlight, through assembling and interpreting insights from literature, the overarching neglect of affect across methods for fake news detection AI, and how this could be a potentially important factor for geo-political bias within them. This exposition, we believe, also serves as a first effort in understanding how geo-political biases work within AI pipelines beyond the data collection stage.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it