What distinguishes conspiracy from critical narratives? A computational analysis of oppositional discourse

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.10745v1
• Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 14:18:47 GMT
• Title: What distinguishes conspiracy from critical narratives? A computational analysis of oppositional discourse
• Authors: Damir Korenčić, Berta Chulvi, Xavier Bonet Casals, Alejandro Toselli, Mariona Taulé, Paolo Rosso,
• Abstract summary: We propose a novel topic-agnostic annotation scheme that distinguishes between conspiracies and critical texts. We also contribute with the multilingual XAI-DisInfodemics corpus (English and Spanish), which contains a high-quality annotation of Telegram messages.
• Score: 42.0918839418817
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: The current prevalence of conspiracy theories on the internet is a significant issue, tackled by many computational approaches. However, these approaches fail to recognize the relevance of distinguishing between texts which contain a conspiracy theory and texts which are simply critical and oppose mainstream narratives. Furthermore, little attention is usually paid to the role of inter-group conflict in oppositional narratives. We contribute by proposing a novel topic-agnostic annotation scheme that differentiates between conspiracies and critical texts, and that defines span-level categories of inter-group conflict. We also contribute with the multilingual XAI-DisInfodemics corpus (English and Spanish), which contains a high-quality annotation of Telegram messages related to COVID-19 (5,000 messages per language). We also demonstrate the feasibility of an NLP-based automatization by performing a range of experiments that yield strong baseline solutions. Finally, we perform an analysis which demonstrates that the promotion of intergroup conflict and the presence of violence and anger are key aspects to distinguish between the two types of oppositional narratives, i.e., conspiracy vs. critical.

Related papers

• Fear and Loathing on the Frontline: Decoding the Language of Othering by Russia-Ukraine War Bloggers [6.632254395574994]
  Othering, the act of portraying outgroups as fundamentally different from the ingroup, often escalates into framing them as existential threats. These dynamics are alarmingly pervasive, spanning from the extreme historical examples of genocides against minorities in Germany and Rwanda to the ongoing violence and rhetoric targeting migrants in the US and Europe. Our framework, designed to offer deeper insights into othering dynamics, combines with a rapid adaptation process to provide essential tools for mitigating othering's adverse impacts on social cohesion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-19T19:56:03Z)
• PanoSent: A Panoptic Sextuple Extraction Benchmark for Multimodal Conversational Aspect-based Sentiment Analysis [74.41260927676747]
  This paper bridges the gaps by introducing a multimodal conversational Sentiment Analysis (ABSA) To benchmark the tasks, we construct PanoSent, a dataset annotated both manually and automatically, featuring high quality, large scale, multimodality, multilingualism, multi-scenarios, and covering both implicit and explicit sentiment elements. To effectively address the tasks, we devise a novel Chain-of-Sentiment reasoning framework, together with a novel multimodal large language model (namely Sentica) and a paraphrase-based verification mechanism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-18T13:51:01Z)
• Analyzing Sentiment Polarity Reduction in News Presentation through Contextual Perturbation and Large Language Models [1.8512070255576754]
  This paper introduces a novel approach to tackle this problem by reducing the polarity of latent sentiments in news content. We employ transformation constraints to modify sentences while preserving their core semantics. Our experiments and human evaluations demonstrate the effectiveness of these two models in achieving reduced sentiment polarity with minimal modifications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-03T13:27:32Z)
• Dimensions of Online Conflict: Towards Modeling Agonism [2.471304332463658]
  Agonism plays a vital role in democratic dialogue by fostering diverse perspectives and robust discussions. To model these two types of conflict, we collected Twitter conversations related to trending controversial topics. We introduce a comprehensive annotation schema for labelling different dimensions of conflict in the conversations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T22:34:17Z)
• Multi-turn Dialogue Comprehension from a Topic-aware Perspective [70.37126956655985]
  This paper proposes to model multi-turn dialogues from a topic-aware perspective. We use a dialogue segmentation algorithm to split a dialogue passage into topic-concentrated fragments in an unsupervised way. We also present a novel model, Topic-Aware Dual-Attention Matching (TADAM) Network, which takes topic segments as processing elements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-18T11:03:55Z)
• DiPlomat: A Dialogue Dataset for Situated Pragmatic Reasoning [89.92601337474954]
  Pragmatic reasoning plays a pivotal role in deciphering implicit meanings that frequently arise in real-life conversations. We introduce a novel challenge, DiPlomat, aiming at benchmarking machines' capabilities on pragmatic reasoning and situated conversational understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-15T10:41:23Z)
• Conflicts, Villains, Resolutions: Towards models of Narrative Media Framing [19.589945994234075]
  We revisit a widely used conceptualization of framing from the communication sciences which explicitly captures elements of narratives. We adapt an effective annotation paradigm that breaks a complex annotation task into a series of simpler binary questions. We explore automatic multi-label prediction of our frames with supervised and semi-supervised approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-03T08:50:13Z)
• A Decomposition-Based Approach for Evaluating Inter-Annotator Disagreement in Narrative Analysis [0.0]
  We present a method for a conceptual decomposition of an existing annotation into two separate levels. We then employ statistical analysis in order to quantify how much of the inter-annotator disagreement can be explained by each of the two levels. We conclude with a broader discussion on the potential implications of our approach in studying and evaluating inter-annotator disagreement in other settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-11T07:02:50Z)
• Towards Identifying Social Bias in Dialog Systems: Frame, Datasets, and Benchmarks [95.29345070102045]
  In this paper, we focus our investigation on social bias detection of dialog safety problems. We first propose a novel Dial-Bias Frame for analyzing the social bias in conversations pragmatically. We introduce CDail-Bias dataset that is the first well-annotated Chinese social bias dialog dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-16T11:59:29Z)
• Context-Aware Interaction Network for Question Matching [51.76812857301819]
  We propose a context-aware interaction network (COIN) to align two sequences and infer their semantic relationship. Specifically, each interaction block includes (1) a context-aware cross-attention mechanism to effectively integrate contextual information, and (2) a gate fusion layer to flexibly interpolate aligned representations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-17T05:03:56Z)

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.