Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 68 references

Angry but Accurate: Detecting and Profiling the Counter-Misinformation Ecosystem on Twitter

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-12 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Posts that oppose COVID-19 misinformation on Twitter are angrier, more disgusted, and sadder than posts that spread it.

desk verdict Solid scale-up of a known pattern: anti-misinfo COVID tweets are modestly angrier/sadder/disgusted and come from more established accounts; the result is useful but rests on an imperfect NLI labeler without a human-checked subsample. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.02900 v1 pith:QBABR2WA submitted 2026-07-03 cs.SI cs.CLcs.CY

Eun Cheol Choi , Emilio Ferrara This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SIcs.CLcs.CY
keywords counter-misinformationCOVID-19Twitterstancedetectionnaturallanguageinferenceemotionangersocialcorrection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks who pushes back against false claims on social media and how they sound when they do. Using a domain-specific natural-language-inference classifier on a large COVID-19 Twitter corpus, the authors label hundreds of thousands of posts as supporting or opposing fact-checked false claims, then compare emotion, toxicity, bot scores, and account attributes across the two groups. The central finding is that corrective posts are more emotionally negative—higher in anger, disgust, and sadness—than the posts that spread the false claims, and that the people doing the correcting tend to hold more established accounts. The result challenges the common assumption that negative emotion is mainly a signature of falsehood rather than of correction, and it implies that moderation rules keyed to emotional intensity can suppress the very discourse that contests misinformation.

What carries the argument

A domain-specific natural-language-inference (NLI) classifier, fine-tuned on COVID-19 misinformation data and synthetic pairs, that labels claim–tweet pairs as supporting, opposing, or neutral; after filtering, it yields 264,737 stance-labeled tweets whose user- and text-level features are then compared with Cliff’s delta and SHAP-interpreted classifiers.

What would settle it

Re-label a large random sample of the same claim–tweet pairs with independent human coders or a substantially more accurate stance model; if the anger/disgust/sadness elevation and the established-user pattern disappear or reverse under the cleaner labels, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At scale on COVID-19 Twitter, posts that oppose fact-checked false claims carry higher levels of anger, disgust, and sadness than posts that support those claims. The differences are modest in size but consistent in direction across the negative emotions. The opposing posts also tend to come from more established users—older accounts, more followers, higher listed counts—while bot scores do not cleanly separate the two sides.

Load-bearing premise

That residual errors from the stance classifier and the filtering of neutral or ambiguous cases do not reverse or invent the group-level differences in emotion and account attributes between support and oppose posts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Content-moderation systems that flag negative emotion as a proxy for misinformation risk downranking or silencing legitimate corrections.
  • Negative affect is not a reliable truth signal: corrective discourse can be angrier than the falsehoods it targets.
  • Counter-misinformation activity is disproportionately carried by more established accounts rather than by bots or brand-new users.
  • User- and text-level features alone carry a weak but real signal for separating support from oppose, even without tweet semantics.
  • Platforms that formalize community fact-checking should expect the corrective population to sound frustrated rather than neutral.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the pattern holds beyond COVID-19, emotion-based downranking could systematically weaken organic correction on political and climate topics as well.
  • The length and surprise elevation on the pro-misinformation side may reflect narrative packaging of pseudo-evidence; testing whether shorter corrections are more persuasive would be a direct follow-on experiment.
  • Demographic or partisan covariates, unobserved here, may partly drive the ‘established user’ pattern; matching on those covariates would test whether establishment itself predicts corrective behavior.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper profiles the counter-misinformation ecosystem on Twitter during COVID-19 by aggregating 15,374 fact-checked false claims, retrieving candidate tweets via BM25, and labeling claim–tweet pairs with a domain-specific NLI model from the authors’ prior work, yielding 264,737 tweets (195,922 supporting and 68,815 opposing false claims). It then compares 23 user- and text-level features—including Demux Ekman emotion scores, DeToxify toxicity, Botometer scores, and account metadata—using Cliff’s δ, distributional plots, and a weak feature-only classifier with SHAP. The central claim is that anti-misinformation posts are more emotionally negative than pro-misinformation posts (higher sadness, anger, and disgust; |δ|≈0.10–0.125), contrary to the common view that negative affect is a signature of falsehood, and that opposing posts tend to come from more established users (older accounts, more followers, higher listed counts). Bot scores do not separate the groups; feature-only models achieve only modest above-chance separation (RF F1≈0.632).

Significance. If the stance–emotion association survives tighter label validation, the result is a useful corrective to both research and platform practice: negative emotion is not a reliable proxy for falsehood, and moderation that downranks emotionally charged content risks suppressing organic correction. Strengths include scale across a broad claim set, discrete-emotion measurement rather than dictionary coding, honest reporting of modest effect sizes and weak feature-only separability, and extension of smaller prior observations on COVID-19 and crisis correction. The NLI-plus-profiling pipeline is a reusable template for studying the response side of misinformation at scale. The contribution is empirical and comparative rather than theoretical; its value hinges on whether residual labeling error can be shown not to invent the reported group differences.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2.1–3.2.2, Table 2, Figure 3] §3.2.1–3.2.2, Table 2, Figure 3: The central emotion claim (higher sadness/anger/disgust in anti-misinformation tweets; Cliff’s δ ≈ −0.125/−0.098/−0.097) rests entirely on NLI labels with F1_Con = 0.745 and F1_Ent = 0.779. Neutrals and cross-claim ambiguities are filtered, but the paper reports no human-validated subsample of the final 264,737 tweets and no sensitivity analysis under systematic misclassification (e.g., angry supporting tweets preferentially labeled as opposing). Because the reported |δ| values are modest, even moderate label bias could invent or reverse the pattern. A stratified human audit of the analytical set (or confusion-matrix-conditioned emotion distributions on held-out labeled pairs) is needed before the scaled claim can be treated as secure.
  2. [§3.2.2, §4.2, Table 2] §3.2.2, §4.2, Table 2, Figure 4: The sample comprises 264,737 tweets from 201,334 users, so user-level features (followers, listed count, account age, activity) are repeated across a user’s tweets. Cliff’s δ and the SHAP analysis treat tweets as independent observations. Dependence can inflate the apparent separation on user attributes that are constant within user. Report user-level aggregates (one observation per user, or per-user mean stance) or cluster-robust comparisons so that the “more established users” claim is not an artifact of tweet multiplicity.
  3. [§3.1.2, §4.1] §3.1.2, §4.1: Candidate tweets are the BM25 top-100 per claim. Lexical retrieval can under-sample paraphrastic corrections and over-sample posts that restate claim wording, which may systematically shape emotion and length profiles (e.g., terse “that’s false” vs. elaborate supporting narratives). A brief retrieval-sensitivity check—e.g., comparing emotion δ on high- vs. low-BM25 ranks, or on a denser retrieval slice—would show whether the angry-corrector pattern is robust to the retrieval design.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 2] Table 2 reports only features with |δ|>0.05. A full appendix table of all 23 features (including toxicity and bot scores) would let readers see null results and avoid selective emphasis.
  2. [§3.2.3, §4] Toxicity is measured (§3.2.3) but barely discussed in Results; either report the δ values or state explicitly that toxicity did not differentiate the groups.
  3. [Figure 3] Figure 3 KDEs would be clearer with a shared x-axis scale and a note on whether scores are calibrated probabilities or raw model outputs.
  4. [§4.3, Table 3] §4.3: Undersampling the majority class for the feature-only classifiers is fine for balanced accuracy, but report the original class prior and, if possible, PR-AUC on the natural imbalance so readers can judge operational utility.
  5. [§1] The term “counter-misinformation ecosystem” is useful but introduced without a precise operational definition; a one-sentence definition in §1 would help.
  6. [Abstract, §4.2] Minor: “listed more often” / “higher listed counts” is clear to Twitter researchers but could be glossed once for a broader Hypertext/Web audience.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor self-citation of the authors' prior NLI/CMG labeling pipeline; emotion and user-feature contrasts use independent scorers and are not forced by construction.

  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract; §3.2.1 Classifier Training and Evaluation]
    "applying a domain-specific NLI model from our prior work to a large corpus of COVID-19 tweets, we classify 264,737 posts as supporting or opposing false claims [...] We use the previous fine-tuning dataset and the two-step fine-tuning process described in [11]"

    The binary partition into pro- and anti-misinformation groups that all subsequent comparisons rest on is produced by a classifier whose architecture, fine-tuning data, CMG augmentation, and reported metrics are justified solely by citation to the authors' own prior paper. This is self-citation of a measurement tool rather than a definitional loop or fitted-parameter-as-prediction; the emotion/user deltas themselves are not algebraically forced by [11].

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claim is a between-group comparison (anti- vs. pro-misinformation tweets) on 23 features. Stance labels come from an NLI model whose training recipe and reported F1 are taken from the authors' prior work [11], which is ordinary self-citation of a measurement instrument. Emotion scores (Demux/Ekman), toxicity (DeToxify), bot scores (Botometer), and raw Twitter account metadata are produced by independent tools never fitted to the stance labels or to the target deltas. Cliff's δ and the RF/SHAP analyses are post-hoc descriptive statistics on those independently measured features; nothing is defined so that the observed negative-emotion elevation must hold by construction. There is no uniqueness theorem, no ansatz smuggled via self-citation, no parameter fitted on a subset and then re-presented as a prediction of a near-identical quantity, and no renaming of a known result. Residual classifier error is a validity concern (acknowledged in §5.1), not circularity. Score 2 reflects only the non-load-bearing self-citation of the labeling tool.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim is an observational group comparison after automated stance labeling. It rests on the accuracy of the prior-work NLI labeler, the validity of off-the-shelf emotion/toxicity/bot scorers on this domain, retrieval and filtering choices that define the sample, and the framing of a ‘counter-misinformation ecosystem’ as the population of interest. No deep free-parameter fit drives the emotion deltas; the main burdens are measurement and sampling assumptions.

free parameters (2)
  • BM25 retrieval depth per claim = 100
    Fixed at 100 candidate tweets per false claim; this hand choice determines which posts enter NLI labeling and can bias the support/oppose sample toward lexical similarity.
  • Majority-class undersampling for stance classifiers = balanced to minority class size
    Supporting class undersampled to balance training/evaluation so chance accuracy is 0.5 for Table 3 models; affects reported F1/accuracy but not the primary Cliff’s δ comparisons.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The domain-fine-tuned DeBERTa NLI model (F1_macro≈0.805) labels support vs oppose of false COVID-19 claims accurately enough that residual errors do not reverse group-level emotion and user-feature differences.
    Load-bearing for constructing the 264,737-tweet analytical sample (§3.2.1–3.2.2); imperfect labels are noted in §5.1.
  • domain assumption Demux multi-label scores validly measure Ekman’s six basic emotions in this tweet domain for comparative purposes.
    Primary dependent measures for the anger/disgust/sadness finding (§3.2.3, Figure 3).
  • domain assumption DeToxify toxicity scores and Botometer X bot-likelihood scores are sufficiently valid on 2020–2021 COVID-19 tweets for null/secondary comparisons.
    Used among the 23 features; bot scores are reported as non-differentiating (§4.2).
  • domain assumption Public, non-deleted COVID-19 tweets retrieved by BM25 against aggregated fact-checked false claims are representative enough of organic support and opposition for the stated profiling claims.
    Sampling frame in §3.1–3.2; private/deleted/suspended content excluded (§5.1).
  • standard math Cliff’s delta is an appropriate effect-size summary for comparing the two stance groups on the chosen features.
    Nonparametric ordinal effect size used to rank features in Table 2.
invented entities (1)
  • counter-misinformation ecosystem
    purpose: Name the population of users and posts that organically oppose false claims, as the object of detection and profiling.
    Terminological construct introduced in the introduction; useful framing but not independently measured outside the paper’s support/oppose partition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Angry but Accurate: Detecting and Profiling the Counter-Misinformation Ecosystem on Twitter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QBABR2WA

@misc{pith2026260702900,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Angry but Accurate: Detecting and Profiling the Counter-Misinformation Ecosystem on Twitter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QBABR2WA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.02900}
}
read the original abstract

On social media, many users actively push back against false claims. Understanding who pushes back and how they do so matters, as this corrective activity is central to how misinformation is contested. We study this counter-misinformation ecosystem at scale: applying a domain-specific NLI model from our prior work to a large corpus of COVID-19 tweets, we classify 264,737 posts as supporting or opposing false claims and compare 23 user- and text-level features across the two groups. Contrary to the dominant assumption that negative emotion is a signature of falsehood, we find that anti-misinformation posts are more emotionally negative than pro-misinformation posts, with higher levels of anger, disgust, and sadness. These differences are modest in magnitude but consistent in direction across the negative emotions. We also find that posts opposing misinformation tend to come from more established users, i.e., older accounts, more followers, and higher listed counts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02900 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of Methods (§3). 3.1.2 Retrieving Claim–Tweet Pairs. To link claims to real-world posts, we drew on the large-scale public Coronavirus Twitter dataset [8], which covers 2020 to 2021. For each of the 15,374 false claims (§3.1.1), we used BM25 [48] to retrieve the 100 most relevant tweets, yielding 1,537,400 candidate claim and tweet pairs for downstream classification. 3.2 Analytical Procedure 3.2.1 Classifi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Weekly volume of retrieved tweets supporting or [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. KDE distributions of Ekman’s six emotion scores in pro- vs. anti-misinformation tweets. Anti-misinformation tweets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distributions of user attributes across pro- and anti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: SHAP summary plot showing which features push [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Leticia Bode and Emily K Vraga. 2018. See something, say something: Correction of global health misinformation on social media.Health communication33, 9 (2018), 1131–1140

    2018

  2. [2]

    Luís Borges, Bruno Martins, and Pável Calado. 2019. Combining similarity features and deep representation learning for stance detection in the context of checking fake news.Journal of Data and Information Quality (JDIQ)11, 3 (2019), 1–26

    2019

  3. [3]

    Samuel Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D Manning

  4. [4]

    InPro- ceedings of the 2015 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing

    A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. InPro- ceedings of the 2015 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing. 632–642

    2015

  5. [5]

    Ho-Chun Herbert Chang, Emily Chen, Meiqing Zhang, Goran Muric, and Emilio Ferrara. 2021. Social bots and social media manipulation in 2020: The year Preprint. Accepted to ACM Hypertext 2026. Choi & Ferrara in review. InHandbook of Computational Social Science, Volume 1. Routledge, 304–323

    2021

  6. [6]

    Canyu Chen and Kai Shu. 2024. Can LLM-generated misinformation be detected?. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, Vol. 2024. 34687–34726

    2024

  7. [7]

    Canyu Chen and Kai Shu. 2024. Combating misinformation in the age of llms: Opportunities and challenges.AI magazine45, 3 (2024), 354–368

    2024

  8. [8]

    Emily Chen, Herbert Chang, Ashwin Rao, Kristina Lerman, Geoffrey Cowan, and Emilio Ferrara. 2021. COVID-19 misinformation and the 2020 US presidential election.The Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review(2021). doi:10.37016/ mr-2020-57

    2021

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Emily Chen, Kristina Lerman, and Emilio Ferrara. 2020. Tracking social media discourse about the covid-19 pandemic: Development of a public coronavirus twitter data set.JMIR public health and surveillance6, 2 (2020), e19273

    2020

  2. [10]

    Mingxi Cheng, Songli Wang, Xiaofeng Yan, Tianqi Yang, Wenshuo Wang, Zehao Huang, Xiongye Xiao, Shahin Nazarian, and Paul Bogdan. 2021. A COVID-19 rumor dataset.Frontiers in Psychology12 (2021), 644801

    2021

  3. [11]

    Georgios Chochlakis, Gireesh Mahajan, Sabyasachee Baruah, Keith Burghardt, Kristina Lerman, and Shrikanth Narayanan. 2023. Leveraging label correlations in a multi-label setting: A case study in emotion. InICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Eun Cheol Choi, Ashwin Balasubramanian, Jinhu Qi, and Emilio Ferrara. 2025. Limited effectiveness of llm-based data augmentation for covid-19 misinformation stance detection. InCompanion Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025. 934–937

    2025

  5. [13]

    Eun Cheol Choi and Emilio Ferrara. 2024. Automated claim matching with large language models: empowering fact-checkers in the fight against misinformation. InCompanion Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024. 1441–1449

    2024

  6. [14]

    Eun Cheol Choi and Emilio Ferrara. 2024. Fact-gpt: Fact-checking augmentation via claim matching with llms. InCompanion Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024. 883–886

    2024

  7. [15]

    Norman Cliff. 1993. Dominance statistics: Ordinal analyses to answer ordinal questions.Psychological Bulletin114, 3 (1993), 494–509

    1993

  8. [16]

    Limeng Cui and Dongwon Lee. 2020. Coaid: Covid-19 healthcare misinformation dataset.arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.00885(2020)

    2020 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Clayton Allen Davis, Onur Varol, Emilio Ferrara, Alessandro Flammini, and Filippo Menczer. 2016. Botornot: A system to evaluate social bots. InProceedings of the 25th international conference companion on world wide web. 273–274

    2016

  10. [18]

    Bosheng Ding, Chengwei Qin, Ruochen Zhao, Tianze Luo, Xinze Li, Guizhen Chen, Wenhan Xia, Junjie Hu, Luu Anh Tuan, and Shafiq Joty. 2024. Data augmentation using llms: Data perspectives, learning paradigms and challenges. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguis...

    2024

  11. [19]

    Chris Dulhanty, Jason L Deglint, Ibrahim Ben Daya, and Alexander Wong. 2019. Taking a stance on fake news: Towards automatic disinformation assessment via deep bidirectional transformer language models for stance detection.arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.11951(2019)

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    P Ekman. 1992. Are there basic emotions?Psychological review99, 3 (1992), 550–553

    1992

  13. [21]

    Emilio Ferrara, Herbert Chang, Emily Chen, Goran Muric, and Jaimin Patel. 2020. Characterizing social media manipulation in the 2020 US presidential election. First Monday(2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Emilio Ferrara, Onur Varol, Clayton Davis, Filippo Menczer, and Alessandro Flammini. 2016. The rise of social bots.Commun. ACM59, 7 (2016), 96–104

    2016

  15. [23]

    Hans WA Hanley and Zakir Durumeric. 2025. Sub-Standards and Mal-Practices: Misinformation’s Role in Insular, Polarized, and Toxic Interactions on Reddit. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction9, 7 (2025), 1–35

    2025

  16. [24]

    Laura Hanu and Unitary team. 2020. Detoxify. Github. https://github.com/unitaryai/detoxify

    2020

  17. [25]

    Momchil Hardalov, Arnav Arora, Preslav Nakov, and Isabelle Augenstein. 2022. A survey on stance detection for mis- and disinformation identification. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022. 1259–1277

    2022

  18. [26]

    Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. DeBERTa: Decoding-enhanced BERT with Disentangled Attention. InInternational Confer- ence on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/forum?id=XPZIaotutsD

    2021

  19. [27]

    Tamanna Hossain, Robert L Logan Iv, Arjuna Ugarte, Yoshitomo Matsubara, Sean Young, and Sameer Singh. 2020. COVIDLies: Detecting COVID-19 misinformation on social media. InProceedings of the 1st Workshop on NLP for COVID-19 (Part 2) at EMNLP 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    Akram Sadat Hosseini and Steffen Staab. 2023. Emotional Framing in the Spread- ing of False and True Claims. InProceedings of the 15th ACM Web Science Confer- ence 2023. 96–106

    2023

  21. [29]

    Yanfang Hou, Peter van der Putten, and Suzan Verberne. 2022. The COVMis- stance dataset: stance detection on twitter for COVID-19 misinformation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02000(2022)

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Jisu Kim, Jihwan Aum, SangEun Lee, Yeonju Jang, Eunil Park, and Daejin Choi

  23. [31]

    FibVID: comprehensive fake news diffusion dataset during the COVID-19 period.Telematics and Informatics64 (2021), 101688

    2021

  24. [32]

    Jiyoung Lee, Shaheen Kanthawala, Brian C Britt, Danielle F Deavours, and Tanya Ott-Fulmore. 2022. Prevalence of anger, engaged in sadness: engagement in misinformation, correction, and emotional tweets during mass shootings.Online information review46, 3 (2022), 422–440

    2022

  25. [33]

    Lundberg

    Scott M. Lundberg. 2024. SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations). https://github. com/slundberg/shap. Accessed: October 14, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Yingchen Ma, Bing He, Nathan Subrahmanian, and Srijan Kumar. 2023. Char- acterizing and predicting social correction on twitter. InProceedings of the 15th ACM Web Science Conference 2023. 86–95

    2023

  27. [35]

    Drew B Margolin, Aniko Hannak, and Ingmar Weber. 2018. Political fact-checking on Twitter: When do corrections have an effect?Political communication35, 2 (2018), 196–219

    2018

  28. [36]

    Killian L McLoughlin, William J Brady, and Molly J Crockett. 2021. The role of moral outrage in the spread of misinformation.TMS Proceedings(2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Shahan Ali Memon and Kathleen M Carley. 2020. CMU-MisCov19: a novel Twitter dataset for characterizing COVID-19 misinformation.Zenodo(2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    Nicholas Micallef, Bing He, Srijan Kumar, Mustaque Ahamad, and Nasir Memon

  31. [39]

    In2020 IEEE international Conference on big data (big data)

    The role of the crowd in countering misinformation: A case study of the COVID-19 infodemic. In2020 IEEE international Conference on big data (big data). IEEE, 748–757

  32. [40]

    Isabelle Mohr, Amelie Wührl, and Roman Klinger. 2022. CoVERT: A corpus of fact-checked biomedical COVID-19 tweets. InProceedings of the thirteenth language resources and evaluation conference. 244–257

    2022

  33. [41]

    Mohsen Mosleh, Cameron Martel, Dean Eckles, and David Rand. 2021. Perverse downstream consequences of debunking: Being corrected by another user for posting false political news increases subsequent sharing of low quality, partisan, and toxic content in a Twitter field experim...

    2021

  34. [42]

    Yixin Nie, Haonan Chen, and Mohit Bansal. 2019. Combining fact extraction and verification with neural semantic matching networks. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, Vol. 33. 6859–6866

    2019

  35. [43]

    Nahiyan Bin Noor, Niloofar Yousefi, Billy Spann, and Nitin Agarwal. 2023. Com- paring toxicity across social media platforms for COVID-19 discourse.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.14270(2023)

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Paola Pascual-Ferrá, Neil Alperstein, Daniel J Barnett, and Rajiv N Rimal. 2021. Toxicity and verbal aggression on social media: Polarized discourse on wearing face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic.Big Data & Society8, 1 (2021), 20539517211023533

    2021

  37. [45]

    Frédéric Piedboeuf and Philippe Langlais. 2023. Is ChatGPT the ultimate Data Augmentation Algorithm?. InFindings of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: EMNLP 2023. 15606–15615

    2023

  38. [46]

    Kashyap Popat, Subhabrata Mukherjee, Jannik Strötgen, and Gerhard Weikum

  39. [47]

    InProceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web companion

    Where the truth lies: Explaining the credibility of emerging claims on the web and social media. InProceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web companion. 1003–1012

  40. [48]

    Nicolas Pröllochs. 2022. Community-based fact-checking on Twitter’s Birdwatch platform. InProceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 16. 794–805

    2022

  41. [49]

    Alessandro Quattrociocchi, Gabriele Etta, Michele Avalle, Matteo Cinelli, and Wal- ter Quattrociocchi. 2022. Reliability of news and toxicity in twitter conversations. InInternational Conference on Social Informatics. Springer, 245–256

    2022

  42. [50]

    Patrick Rafail. 2018. Nonprobability sampling and Twitter: Strategies for semi- bounded and bounded populations.Social Science Computer Review36, 2 (2018), 195–211

    2018

  43. [51]

    Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. InProceedings of the 2019 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing and the 9th international joint conference on natural language processing (EMNLP-IJCN...

    2019

  44. [52]

    Stephen Robertson and Hugo Zaragoza. 2009. The probabilistic relevance frame- work: BM25 and beyond.Foundations and Trends®in Information Retrieval3, 4 (2009), 333–389

    2009

  45. [53]

    Arkadiy Saakyan, Tuhin Chakrabarty, and Smaranda Muresan. 2021. COVID-fact: Fact extraction and verification of real-world claims on COVID-19 pandemic. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics and the 11th International Joint...

    2021

  46. [54]

    Fariba Sadeghi, Amir Jalaly Bidgoly, and Hossein Amirkhani. 2022. Fake news de- tection on social media using a natural language inference approach.Multimedia Tools and Applications81, 23 (2022), 33801–33821

    2022

  47. [55]

    Tanik Saikh, Amit Anand, Asif Ekbal, and Pushpak Bhattacharyya. 2019. A novel approach towards fake news detection: deep learning augmented with textual entailment features. InInternational conference on applications of natural language to information systems. Springer, 345–358

    2019

  48. [56]

    Shrey Satapara, Parth Mehta, Debasis Ganguly, and Sandip Modha. 2024. Fighting Fire with Fire: Adversarial Prompting to Generate a Misinformation Detection Dataset.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04481(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Gautam Kishore Shahi and Durgesh Nandini. 2020. FakeCovid–A multilingual cross-domain fact check news dataset for COVID-19. InWorkshop Proceedings of Angry but Accurate: Detecting and Profiling the Counter-Misinformation Ecosystem on Twitter Preprint. Accepted to ACM Hypertext...

    2020

  50. [58]

    Shakshi Sharma, Ekanshi Agrawal, Rajesh Sharma, and Anwitaman Datta. 2022. Facov: Covid-19 viral news and rumors fact-check articles dataset. InProceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media, Vol. 16. 1312–1321

    2022

  51. [59]

    Kirill Solovev and Nicolas Pröllochs. 2022. Moral emotions shape the virality of COVID-19 misinformation on social media. InProceedings of the ACM web conference 2022. 3706–3717

    2022

  52. [60]

    Briony Swire-Thompson, Joseph DeGutis, and David Lazer. 2020. Searching for the backfire effect: Measurement and design considerations.Journal of applied research in memory and cognition9, 3 (2020), 286–299

    2020

  53. [61]

    Soroush Vosoughi, Deb Roy, and Sinan Aral. 2018. The spread of true and false news online.science359, 6380 (2018), 1146–1151

    2018

  54. [62]

    Jason Weismueller, Richard L Gruner, Paul Harrigan, Kristof Coussement, and Shasha Wang. 2024. Information sharing and political polarisation on social media: The role of falsehood and partisanship.Information Systems Journal34, 3 (2024), 854–893

    2024

  55. [63]

    Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference. InProceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics: Human Language Technol...

    2018

  56. [64]

    Valerie Wirtschafter, Frederico Batista Pereira, Natália Bueno, Nara Pavão, João Pedro Oliveira dos Santos, and Felipe Nunes. 2024. Detecting misinfor- mation: Identifying false news spread by political leaders in the global south. Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital ...

    2024

  57. [65]

    Kai-Cheng Yang, Emilio Ferrara, and Filippo Menczer. 2022. Botometer 101: Social bot practicum for computational social scientists.Journal of computational social science5, 2 (2022), 1511–1528

    2022

  58. [66]

    Kai-Cheng Yang, Onur Varol, Pik-Mai Hui, and Filippo Menczer. 2020. Scalable and generalizable social bot detection through data selection. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, Vol. 34. 1096–1103

    2020

  59. [67]

    Arefeh Yavary, Hedieh Sajedi, and Mohammad Saniee Abadeh. 2019. Information verification improvement by textual entailment methods.SN Applied Sciences1, 9 (2019), 1048

    2019

  60. [68]

    Qi Zeng, Quan Zhou, and Shanshan Xu. 2017. Neural stance detectors for fake news challenge.CS224n: natural language processing with deep learning(2017)

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed July 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.