Credtwi: Investigating Social Media Credibility with a Browser Plugin
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
People now look for information online and on social media for everyday problems. Organizations and malevolent actors have taken the opportunity to spread misinformation/disinformation. It is increasingly important to understand the credibility of online information. We designed and implemented a research browser plugin, Credtwi. It injects credibility questionnaires directly into the user’s Twitter feed, enabling crowdsourced data collection. We carried out a week-long field study where participants assessed the credibility of tweets on various topics. We provide insights into information credibility in the Twitter ecosystem by analyzing the assessments and study questionnaires. The participants’ perception of Twitter as a credible information source decreased after using Credtwi. Our results suggest that the author’s verification status and bio are the most important factors for their perceived credibility. Finally, we discovered significant differences between the assessments of the different genders. Our results contribute to the research on online social media content credibility.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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