MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400425565 · doi:10.29173/crossings243

The Virus Gone Viral: The October 4th Conspiracy, “X”, and Post-Truth

2024· article· en· W4400425565 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCrossings An Undergraduate Arts Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMisinformation and Its Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirologyPost truthVirusBiologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On October 4th, 2023, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) conducted a nationwide test of the Emergency Alert System and Wireless Emergency Alerts, broadcasting a message to all consumer cell phones in the United States; This routine test became the catalyst for a baseless conspiracy theory involving 5G, wave frequencies, and zombies within the anti-vaccine community and gained significant traction online. In the context of a post-truth world, the proliferation of such dangerous misinformation warrants an examination of the role played by social media platforms, particularly "X" (formerly "Twitter"), in disseminating the October 4th Zombie conspiracy theory. This study explores how social media facilitates the dissemination and perpetuation of groundless theories devoid of objective truth within like-minded communities, and utilizes content analysis, discourse analysis, and an examination of user engagement with October 4th-related content on "X". What is found is that the rise of this conspiracy theory is largely attributed to the nature of the “X” algorithm: whether engaged with positively or negatively, engagement pushes content regardless of the nature of the post and therefore enables the widespread of the conspiracy theory across the platform to be viewed by millions. Thus, these findings bring forth the question of who is responsible for regulating informational versus misinformational discourse if we live in a post-truth era.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0130.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrossings An Undergraduate Arts JournalSame topicMisinformation and Its ImpactsFrench-language works237,207