arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2408.03154

Fake News Detection via Wisdom of Synthetic & Representative Crowds

Abstract

Social media companies have struggled to provide a democratically legitimate definition of "Fake News". Reliance on expert judgment has attracted criticism due to a general trust deficit and political polarisation. Approaches reliant on the ``wisdom of the crowds'' are a cost-effective, transparent and inclusive alternative. This paper provides a novel end-to-end methodology to detect fake news on X via "wisdom of the synthetic & representative crowds". We deploy an online survey on the Lucid platform to gather veracity assessments for a number of pandemic-related tweets from crowd-workers. Borrowing from the MrP literature, we train a Hierarchical Bayesian model to predict the veracity of each tweet from the perspective of different personae from the population of interest. We then weight the predicted veracity assessments according to a representative stratification frame, such that decisions about ``fake'' tweets are representative of the overall polity of interest. Based on these aggregated scores, we analyse a corpus of tweets and perform a second MrP to generate state-level estimates of the number of people who share fake news. We find small but statistically meaningful heterogeneity in fake news sharing across US states. At the individual-level: i. sharing fake news is generally rare, with an average sharing probability interval [0.07,0.14]; ii. strong evidence that Democrats share less fake news, accounting for a reduction in the sharing odds of [57.3%,3.9%] relative to the average user; iii. when Republican definitions of fake news are used, it is the latter who show a decrease in the propensity to share fake news worth [50.8%, 2.0%]; iv. some evidence that women share less fake news than men, an effect worth a [29.5%,4.9%] decrease.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

François t'Serstevens, Roberto Cerina, Giulia Piccillo. 2024-08-06. Fake News Detection via Wisdom of Synthetic & Representative Crowds. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.03154

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Work, Wellbeing, and Choice: Empirical Lessons for AI Futures

Advances in AI-driven automation have raised questions about how humans might find wellbeing in a world where paid employment is less necessary or less available than before. Paid work has been variously characterized as both a contributor and an impediment to human wellbeing. What is already known about the relationship between paid work and wellbeing? What factors influence wellbeing among people who do not work---or who do not need to work? And how might these factors bear upon prospective AI-induced economic transformations? To help provide empirical grounding for these questions, we survey the psychological, sociological, and economic literature that investigates the relationship between wellbeing and work. We draw on evidence from multiple populations, including the unemployed, retirees, lottery winners, and financially dependent spouses. This comparative review draws from studies across OECD countries, China, India, and Gulf states. We identify three key factors that mediate the relationship between work status and wellbeing: (1) agency and choice---whether the exit from work is voluntary or involuntary, as well as long-term agency; (2) the availability of alternative sources of work's latent benefits---such as volunteering, hobbies, or state-provisioned employment; and (3) social and systemic context---including cultural norms around work and the robustness of social safety nets. We draw on these three factors to derive specific implications for different AI automation scenarios, connecting the empirical evidence to concrete policy considerations.

cs.CY

From Digital Accountability to Accountable Digitality Through Needs-Aware Information Systems: The Case of Auditable Child-Welfare Judgments

Digital accountability research asks how digital systems can, among other aims, be made transparent, explainable, auditable, contestable, and supportive of ongoing learning and improvement. This paper reverses the question: how can digital transformation make established human institutions more accountable? It theorizes this reversal as accountable digitality and specifies needs-aware information systems as the mediating mechanism. The hard and paradigmatic case is child-welfare judgment, where best-interest procedures must protect children, preserve confidentiality, and respect judicial independence while enabling aggregate learning about needs, reasons, exceptions, and disparities. The case is used diagnostically and illustratively to derive and examine the design logic, not as empirical evidence or validation. Conceptual design-oriented analysis decomposes and recombines digital and legal accountability under child-rights constraints, deriving a canonical theory-to-design chain, contingent mechanisms, implications, and safeguards. It advances IS responsibility and ethics research by showing how privacy-preserving, co-created, needs-aware information systems can support institutional self-knowledge and auditable justice.

cs.CY

(Whose defaults?) Is artificial intelligence reorienting archaeological methods?

Generative AI and the practice of "vibe coding" are changing how archaeologists carry out computational research, but their effects on the discipline's range of methods is still understudied. In this paper, we evaluate whether large language models (LLMs) are narrowing the variety of methods archaeologists use. We first analysed approximately 119,000 archaeology abstracts from Scopus, covering publications from 2010 to 2025. Using a locally run LLM, we identified the computational methods reported in each abstract and organised them into 25 broad categories (L2) and 241 finer clusters (L3). A Bayesian Dirichlet-multinomial model of method composition within sub-disciplines found a small but credible shift in method use after 2023. However, this shift was smaller than the variation already present across the full study period. No individual technique showed a significant change, and overall methodological diversity increased rather than declined. We then ran a controlled experiment to see whether LLMs recommend a narrower set of methods than archaeologists have used in practice. Two different open-weight models were asked to suggest methods for 28 archaeological research problems, with prompts providing three levels of methodological guidance: novice, intermediate, and expert. Recommendation diversity was much lower than in the published literature, particularly without methodological guidance. The models also tended to favour methods that were widely used before 2023, and their recommendations more closely resembled the post-2023 literature. Taken together, these results are consistent with LLMs pushing methodological choice towards convergence, although our study cannot establish a causal effect. They raise a broader question: how can archaeology retain methodological diversity as LLMs become more involved in research?

cs.CY