Integration of Critical Thinking in Intelligent Algorithms for Hoax Detection on Social Media Platforms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid growth of social media as a primary channel for information dissemination has triggered a significant surge in the distribution of hoaxes, potentially damaging social order, instigating mass disinformation, and threatening national security. This research aims to design an intelligent algorithm for hoax detection by integrating a critical thinking approach into Natural Language Processing (NLP)-based text processing. The algorithmic model is built using a combination of linguistic features, argument logic, and cognitive indicators such as the detection of unsubstantiated claims, identification of source bias, and evidence testing. To ensure accountability and transparency of the system, an Explainable AI (XAI) approach is applied so that classification results can be understood by non-technical users. The research results show that integrating critical thinking significantly improves detection accuracy to 93.1%, with an increase in precision and recall for detecting hoaxes based on emotional narratives. Beyond technical aspects, this model aligns with the mandate of Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 11 of 2008 concerning Information and Electronic Transactions (ITE Law), particularly Article 28 paragraph (1), which prohibits the dissemination of false and misleading news that harms the public. Therefore, this system is not only scientifically relevant but also supports law enforcement and strengthens digital literacy in the post-truth era. These findings are expected to be a strategic contribution to the development of an ethical, critical, and responsible digital ecosystem.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".