MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403411078 · doi:10.47852/bonviewjcce42023602

Deep Learning-Based Approach for Monitoring and Controlling Fake Reviews

2024· article· en· W4403411078 on OpenAlex
Nilesh Sable, Parikshit N. Mahalle, Kalyani Kadam, Bipin Sule, Rahul Joshi, Mahendra Deore

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational and Cognitive Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMisinformation and Its Impacts
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDeep learningData scienceArtificial intelligencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last decade, E-commerce has developed into the world's biggest stage for shopping. It has allowed people around the world to directly communicate without any barriers to purchasing the products as per requirements. Internet technologies have reshaped E-commerce since product reviews have become a vital part of online shopping due to their rapid growth. But with widespread usage, it has also brought forth an influx in rates of fake reviews. Fake reviews, which are frequently used to influence public perception, are now a widespread occurrence due to the open nature of E-commerce. Using different learning techniques, many methods and techniques are implemented to spot false reviews and fake behavior. This research aims to use a recurrent neural network (RNN) to combine content and data to identify false product reviews. The proposed approach, which is related to spam indicators, makes use of both product reviews and reviewers' behavioral characteristics. The fine-grained burst pattern analysis is used to conduct a more thorough investigation of produced testimonials during "suspicious" periods in the proposed approach. Additionally, a customer's previous review data are utilized to determine their overall "authorship" reputation, which serves as a barometer for the authenticity of most recent reviews. For the proposed theory, we examined the real-world Amazon review dataset and produced more accurate findings than previous methodologies. In addition to this, our proposed deep learning-based model performance has been validated utilizing the benchmark Yelp Open dataset and IMDB dataset. Received: 12 June 2024 | Revised: 29 July 2024 | Accepted: 18 August 2024 Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest in this work. Data Availability Statement Data are available on request from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Author Contribution Statement Nilesh Sable: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Parikshit Mahalle: Conceptualization, Software, Resources, Supervision. Kalyani Kadam: Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing, Visualization. Bipin Sule: Methodology, Writing – original draft. Rahul Joshi: Investigation, Visualization. Mahendra Deore: Software, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.280 · 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