MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414683445 · doi:10.1038/s44260-025-00053-z

The complexity of misinformation extends beyond virus and warfare analogies

2025· article· en· W4414683445 on OpenAlexaff
Lena Frischlich, Henrik Olsson, Abhishek Roy, Heidi Schulze, Alison Mansheim

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Complexity · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMisinformation and Its Impacts
Canadian institutionsGoogle (Canada)
FundersScience Foundation IrelandSanta Fe Institute
KeywordsMisinformationPerceptionDisinformationDeceptionUnintended consequences

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Debates about misinformation and countermeasures are often driven by dramatic analogies, such as “infodemic” or “information warfare”. While useful shortcuts to interference, these analogies obscure the complex system through which misinformation propagates, leaving perceptual gaps where solutions lie unseen. We present a new framework of the complex multilevel system through which misinformation propagates and show how popular analogies fail to account for this complexity. We discuss implications for policy making and future research.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.022
Scholarly communication0.0100.019
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj ComplexitySame topicMisinformation and Its ImpactsFrench-language works237,207