"Here's Your Evidence": False Consensus in Public Twitter Discussions of COVID-19 Science
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.13248v3
- Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 20:51:45 GMT
- Title: "Here's Your Evidence": False Consensus in Public Twitter Discussions of COVID-19 Science
- Authors: Alexandros Efstratiou, Marina Efstratiou, Satrio Yudhoatmojo, Jeremy Blackburn, Emiliano De Cristofaro,
- Abstract summary: We estimate scientific consensus based on samples of abstracts from preprint servers.
We find that anti-consensus posts and users, though overall less numerous than pro-consensus ones, are vastly over-represented on Twitter.
- Score: 50.08057052734799
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic brought about an extraordinary rate of scientific papers on the topic that were discussed among the general public, although often in biased or misinformed ways. In this paper, we present a mixed-methods analysis aimed at examining whether public discussions were commensurate with the scientific consensus on several COVID-19 issues. We estimate scientific consensus based on samples of abstracts from preprint servers and compare against the volume of public discussions on Twitter mentioning these papers. We find that anti-consensus posts and users, though overall less numerous than pro-consensus ones, are vastly over-represented on Twitter, thus producing a false consensus effect. This transpires with favorable papers being disproportionately amplified, along with an influx of new anti-consensus user sign-ups. Finally, our content analysis highlights that anti-consensus users misrepresent scientific findings or question scientists' integrity in their efforts to substantiate their claims.
Related papers
- When Reviewers Lock Horn: Finding Disagreement in Scientific Peer
Reviews [24.875901048855077]
We introduce a novel task of automatically identifying contradictions among reviewers on a given article.
To the best of our knowledge, we make the first attempt to identify disagreements among peer reviewers automatically.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-28T11:57:51Z) - Estimating the Causal Effect of Early ArXiving on Paper Acceptance [56.538813945721685]
We estimate the effect of arXiving a paper before the reviewing period (early arXiving) on its acceptance to the conference.
Our results suggest that early arXiving may have a small effect on a paper's chances of acceptance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-24T07:45:38Z) - Scientific Opinion Summarization: Paper Meta-review Generation Dataset, Methods, and Evaluation [55.00687185394986]
We propose the task of scientific opinion summarization, where research paper reviews are synthesized into meta-reviews.
We introduce the ORSUM dataset covering 15,062 paper meta-reviews and 57,536 paper reviews from 47 conferences.
Our experiments show that (1) human-written summaries do not always satisfy all necessary criteria such as depth of discussion, and identifying consensus and controversy for the specific domain, and (2) the combination of task decomposition and iterative self-refinement shows strong potential for enhancing the opinions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-24T02:33:35Z) - The Intended Uses of Automated Fact-Checking Artefacts: Why, How and Who [12.55428670523982]
Automated fact-checking is often presented as an tool that fact-checkers, social media consumers, and other stakeholders can use to fight misinformation.
We document this by analysing 100 highly-cited papers, and annotating elements related to intended use.
We argue that this vagueness actively hinders the technology from reaching its goals, as it encourages overclaiming, limits criticism, and prevents stakeholder feedback.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-04-27T14:55:23Z) - The SAME score: Improved cosine based bias score for word embeddings [49.75878234192369]
We introduce SAME, a novel bias score for semantic bias in embeddings.
We show that SAME is capable of measuring semantic bias and identify potential causes for social bias in downstream tasks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-03-28T09:28:13Z) - Dynamics of Cross-Platform Attention to Retracted Papers [25.179837269945015]
Retracted papers circulate widely on social media, digital news and other websites before their official retraction.
We quantify the amount and type of attention 3,851 retracted papers received over time in different online platforms.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-10-15T01:40:20Z) - Reliability of Content and Echo Chambers on YouTube during the COVID-19
Debate [0.0]
This paper aims to investigate information diffusion during the COVID-19 pandemic by evaluating news consumption on YouTube.
We analyse more than 2 million users' engagement with 13,000 videos released by 68 YouTube channels labelled with a political bias and fact-checking index.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-06-16T10:44:29Z) - News consumption and social media regulations policy [70.31753171707005]
We analyze two social media that enforced opposite moderation methods, Twitter and Gab, to assess the interplay between news consumption and content regulation.
Our results show that the presence of moderation pursued by Twitter produces a significant reduction of questionable content.
The lack of clear regulation on Gab results in the tendency of the user to engage with both types of content, showing a slight preference for the questionable ones which may account for a dissing/endorsement behavior.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-06-07T19:26:32Z) - Misinformation Has High Perplexity [55.47422012881148]
We propose to leverage the perplexity to debunk false claims in an unsupervised manner.
First, we extract reliable evidence from scientific and news sources according to sentence similarity to the claims.
Second, we prime a language model with the extracted evidence and finally evaluate the correctness of given claims based on the perplexity scores at debunking time.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-06-08T15:13:44Z) - An Exploratory Study of COVID-19 Misinformation on Twitter [5.070542698701158]
During the COVID-19 pandemic, social media has become a home ground for misinformation.
We have conducted an exploratory study into the propagation, authors and content of misinformation on Twitter around the topic of COVID-19.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-05-12T12:07:35Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.