Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 27 references

Explainable Detection of Implicit Influential Patterns in Conversations via Data Augmentation

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A two-stage fine-tuning recipe with line-level LLM labels lifts detection of implicit conversational manipulation to 82.6% accuracy and sharply improves technique and vulnerability tagging.

desk verdict The reported gains are plausible but not established: no same-backbone ablation means the 6% improvement cannot be attributed to the proposed augmentation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14211 v1 pith:ROVT4DSK submitted 2025-06-17 cs.CL

Sina Abdidizaji , Md Kowsher , Niloofar Yousefi , Ivan Garibay This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords implicitinfluentialpatternsmentalmanipulationdetectiondataaugmentationlargelanguagemodelsinstructionfine-tuningLoRAmulti-labelclassificationconversationanalysis
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 claims that implicit influential patterns in conversations—subtle mental-manipulation remarks that appear only in context—can be detected far better by teaching a model where they occur than by asking it to classify whole conversations. The authors augment an existing conversation dataset using a reasoning language model that marks the specific lines containing manipulation, aggregate repeated runs with a second model, and then fine-tune a small open model in two phases with low-rank adapters. On the MentalManipCon dataset this lifts binary detection accuracy to 82.6%, about 6 percentage points above the vanilla fine-tuned 13-billion-parameter baseline, and raises multi-label accuracy for influence techniques and victim vulnerability to 35.7% and 44.6%, respectively. If correct, the result matters because smaller models become competitive and the model can point at the exact lines that carry the influence.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is line-level data augmentation followed by two-phase fine-tuning. Each conversation is split into labeled lines; a reasoning LLM (DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B) is prompted ten times to return the lines containing implicit manipulation, and a non-reasoning LLM (Llama-3.3-70B) merges the ten outputs into a single set of line labels. Those labels convert the task from whole-conversation binary classification into a sequence-labeling instruction task, which the model learns through LoRA adapters in two stages: first instruction fine-tuning to reproduce line labels, then a classification head for binary and multi-label detection. The second stage freezes the first stage's weights, so the localization knowledge is retained while the classifier is trained.

What would settle it

Take a random sample from MentalManipCon and MentalManipMaj, have expert annotators label each conversational line as manipulative or not, and compare with the augmented line labels from DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B aggregated by Llama-3.3-70B. If per-line agreement is low or systematically biased, the instruction-tuning stage is not learning where manipulation actually occurs, and the accuracy gains must be explained by another mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the bottleneck in detecting implicit influence is not model scale but the granularity of supervision. By converting each conversation into numbered speaker turns, prompting a reasoning model ten times to return manipulative line numbers, and aggregating the runs with a separate language model, the authors produce line-level training targets. Fine-tuning a base Llama model first to output those line numbers and then adding a classification head yields 82.6% binary accuracy on MentalManipCon and 78.6% on MentalManipMaj with models of 1 to 8 billion parameters, surpassing the 76.8% and 74.8% of the 13-billion-parameter vanilla fine-tune, and it improves technique and vulnerability multi-label accuracy from 2.9% and 0.8% to 35.7% and 44.6%. The same instruction-tuned model can also generate explanations of which lines are manipulative and why.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes the line labels produced by the reasoning model and merged by the aggregator are accurate enough to serve as teaching targets; the paper's only verification is an unspecified manual sample with no reported size or agreement measure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Binary detection of implicit influence reaches 82.6% accuracy on the consensus dataset and 78.6% on the majority dataset with models of 8 billion parameters or fewer.
  • Technique tagging and vulnerability tagging jump from about 2.9% and 0.8% accuracy to 35.7% and 44.6%, making fine-grained analysis of manipulation feasible.
  • The instruction-tuned model can output the specific conversational lines where influence occurs, giving the detector a built-in explanation layer.
  • Smaller models trained this way outperform a 13-billion-parameter vanilla fine-tune, suggesting deployment with lower hardware cost.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The ten-run aggregation step may act mainly as label denoising; ablating it (single run vs. aggregated labels) would reveal whether consensus is the source of the gain.
  • Line-level targets open the door to segment-level evaluation: future work could measure detection at the line, not conversation, level and have humans audit flagged spans.
  • The same recipe may transfer to other context-dependent conversational harms, such as coercion or grooming, where utterance-level labels are too coarse.
  • Because zero-shot and few-shot results barely moved with model size, the framework suggests that for rare implicit phenomena, supervision granularity matters more than parameters.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-stage framework for detecting implicit influential patterns (mental manipulation) in conversations. In the first stage, a reasoning language model (DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B) is prompted ten times per conversation to identify lines containing influential patterns; the ten outputs are aggregated by Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct into line-level labels. In the second stage, the authors perform two-phase LoRA-based fine-tuning of Llama-3.1/3.2 base models: first instruction tuning on the augmented data, then classification training with a new head on the original conversation-level labels. The paper reports a 6% improvement in binary detection accuracy over the Llama-2-13B baseline from Wang et al. [22], and improvements of 33% and 43% in multi-label classification of manipulation techniques and victim vulnerabilities, respectively, on the MentalManipCon and MentalManipMaj datasets.

Significance. If the reported gains are robust, the framework would be a practical and relatively lightweight contribution to detecting implicit manipulation in conversations, with an additional interpretability benefit of locating influential lines. The paper uses openly available models and datasets, releases code, and provides a detailed appendix with concrete prompts and an aggregation example. The core scientific value, however, hinges on whether the data augmentation and two-phase fine-tuning, rather than the newer base models or LoRA, are responsible for the improvements. That attribution is not established by the current experimental design, so the headline numbers are not yet trustworthy.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.1, Table 1] The binary classification comparison is confounded: the only fine-tuning baseline is Llama-2-13B from [22], and there is no fine-tuning result for Llama-3.1-8B, Llama-3.2-3B, or Llama-3.2-1B without the proposed augmentation and two-stage pipeline. The claimed 6% improvement (Abstract and Section 5.1) could therefore be due to the newer Llama-3 base models, LoRA parameter-efficient tuning, or different hyperparameters rather than the data augmentation. To support the causal claim, the authors should report same-backbone ablations: e.g., Llama-3.1-8B with vanilla LoRA fine-tuning on raw conversation labels, and the full pipeline with each base model, ideally with matched training budgets.
  2. [Section 3.1] The validation of the augmentation labels is under-specified. The text states only 'we manually sampled the results to verify the accuracy' and concludes 'the data augmentation process demonstrated high accuracy' without reporting the sample size, the agreement measure, or the criteria used. Since these LLM-generated line labels are the training targets for the instruction-tuning stage, noisy or biased labels would propagate into the fine-tuned model. The authors should quantify label quality on a held-out set, for example by comparing aggregated line labels against human annotations or by reporting agreement between the ten inference runs.
  3. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (1)-(2)] The two-phase fine-tuning procedure is not ablated. There is no experiment that removes the instruction-tuning phase, removes the augmentation, or replaces the LoRA adapters with full fine-tuning. Because the paper's central claim is that 'designing a robust fine-tuning pipeline is more critical than merely increasing model size' (Section 5.1), the distinct contributions of (a) the augmented labels, (b) the instruction-tuning stage, and (c) the LoRA training scheme must be isolated. Without such ablations, the headline improvements cannot be attributed to the proposed framework.
  4. [Sections 5.1 and 5.2, Tables 1 and 2] No error bars, seeds, or statistical significance tests are reported for any fine-tuning result. The augmentation procedure is stochastic (ten runs per conversation), and the few-shot examples in Section 5.1 are randomly selected, so run-to-run variance is plausible. The claimed improvements of 6%, 33%, and 43% may be within that variance. At minimum, the authors should report mean and standard deviation over multiple training seeds for the key configurations.
  5. [Section 5.2, Table 2] The multi-label results are reported as 'accuracy' without defining the metric. If this is exact-match (subset) accuracy, it should be stated explicitly, because the baseline values (0.029 and 0.008) are near zero and the relative improvements of 33% and 43% are computed from these near-zero baselines. The absolute accuracies (35.7% and 44.6%) remain low, and the practical significance of these numbers should be discussed. The claim in Section 5.2 that the smallest model achieved 'a performance more than 10 times better' is a ratio on accuracy values and is not a standard or meaningful comparison.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1] The header contains a typo: 'MentalMalipCon' should be 'MentalManipCon'.
  2. [Section 5.2] There are grammatical issues, e.g., 'acheived' should be 'achieved', and 'The results clearly shows that have the approach was clearly a better option' is ungrammatical and should be rewritten.
  3. [Section 2] The related work mentions MentalMAC [10], which also uses data augmentation and distillation for mental manipulation detection. The authors should clarify the concrete differences between their method and [10], since both use augmented data and fine-tuning pipelines.
  4. [Section 1] The terms 'implicit influential patterns' and 'mental manipulation' are used almost interchangeably. A brief definition at first use would help readers distinguish the paper's target from related concepts like toxic language or persuasion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: evaluation uses external gold labels, and the missing same-backbone ablation is a confound, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (i) DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B is prompted ten times per conversation to return line numbers containing implicit manipulative remarks; (ii) Llama-3.3-70B aggregates the ten runs into line-level training labels; (iii) a Llama-3 base model is instruction-tuned to reproduce those line labels, after which a second LoRA adapter and classification head are trained on original conversation-level labels; (iv) results are reported on MentalManipCon and MentalManipMaj, whose gold labels come from the external MentalManip dataset paper [22]. The final binary and multi-label accuracy numbers are therefore not defined in terms of the authors' generated labels: the classifiers are evaluated against annotator-derived labels that are independent of the proposed pipeline. The generated line-level labels are an intermediate training signal, not the evaluation target, so the reported improvements are not forced by construction. The claim that the augmentation itself caused the approximate 6 percent improvement is under-supported because no same-backbone fine-tuning without augmentation is reported, leaving open the possibility that newer Llama-3 base models or LoRA training explain the gain; this is an experimental attribution or confound problem, not circular reasoning. The only self-citations ([1] and [2]) appear in related work and are not load-bearing for the framework. No parameter is fitted and then renamed a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The unvalidated line-label quality, described only as manually sampled with 'high accuracy' and without a sample size or agreement measure, is a data-quality limitation rather than a circular step. Verdict: the derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks, so no significant circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on (a) the gold labels of the MentalManip dataset from [22], (b) the unvalidated line-level labels produced by the reasoning LLM, (c) the comparability of baseline numbers imported from [22], and (d) hand-chosen pipeline hyperparameters (10 augmentation runs, model choices, LoRA setup). No new entities are introduced and no physical constants are fitted, but the lack of a quantitative validation of the augmented labels is the largest unexamined dependency.

free parameters (4)
  • number of augmentation runs per conversation = 10
    Hand-chosen in Section 3.1 and Appendix 1; the ten stochastic line-label outputs are aggregated by another LLM, with no sensitivity analysis on this number.
  • reasoning model for augmentation = DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B
    Selected for efficiency (Appendix 1); the quality of the line-level training signal is tied to this choice, and alternatives are not compared.
  • aggregation model for summaries = Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct
    Hand-selected; the aggregation prompt is not given and the resulting labels are not validated against human judgments.
  • LoRA rank and training hyperparameters = not reported
    Rank r, learning rate, epochs, batch size, and random seeds are omitted, so the reported numbers cannot be exactly reproduced from the text.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Gold labels in the MentalManip datasets (binary, technique, vulnerability) are correct and complete.
    All final accuracy numbers are computed against these annotations from [22]; no error analysis of the gold labels is reported in this paper.
  • domain assumption The LLM-generated line-level labels are a valid supervision signal for the instruction-tuning stage.
    Section 3.1 asserts manual sampling verified 'high accuracy' but provides no quantitative evidence; stage-1 training depends on this.
  • domain assumption Baseline results from [22] were produced under the same evaluation protocol and data splits.
    The paper imports Llama-2-13B numbers from [22] rather than rerunning baselines, so split and metric differences could affect the reported gains.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Explainable Detection of Implicit Influential Patterns in Conversations via Data Augmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ROVT4DSK

@misc{pith2026250614211,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Explainable Detection of Implicit Influential Patterns in Conversations via Data Augmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ROVT4DSK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14211}
}
read the original abstract

In the era of digitalization, as individuals increasingly rely on digital platforms for communication and news consumption, various actors employ linguistic strategies to influence public perception. While models have become proficient at detecting explicit patterns, which typically appear in texts as single remarks referred to as utterances, such as social media posts, malicious actors have shifted toward utilizing implicit influential verbal patterns embedded within conversations. These verbal patterns aim to mentally penetrate the victim's mind in order to influence them, enabling the actor to obtain the desired information through implicit means. This paper presents an improved approach for detecting such implicit influential patterns. Furthermore, the proposed model is capable of identifying the specific locations of these influential elements within a conversation. To achieve this, the existing dataset was augmented using the reasoning capabilities of state-of-the-art language models. Our designed framework resulted in a 6% improvement in the detection of implicit influential patterns in conversations. Moreover, this approach improved the multi-label classification tasks related to both the techniques used for influence and the vulnerability of victims by 33% and 43%, respectively.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14211 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Data augmentation pipeline for finding influential patterns [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The framework of two-phase fine-tuning for detecting mental influential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    Mentalma- nip: A dataset for fine-grained analysis of mental manipulation in conversations

    Yuxin Wang, Ivory Yang, Saeed Hassanpour, and Soroush Vosoughi. Mentalma- nip: A dataset for fine-grained analysis of mental manipulation in conversations. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3747–3764, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Analyzing x’s web of influence: Dis- secting news sharing dynamics through credibility and popularity with transfer entropy and multiplex network measures

    Sina Abdidizaji, Alexander Baekey, Chathura Jayalath, Alexander Mantzaris, Ozlem Ozmen Garibay, and Ivan Garibay. Analyzing x’s web of influence: Dis- secting news sharing dynamics through credibility and popularity with transfer entropy and multiplex network measures. InInternational Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining, pages 12...

    work page 2024

  3. [2]

    Interpretable multi-head self-attention architec- ture for sarcasm detection in social media.Entropy, 23(4):394, 2021

    Ramya Akula and Ivan Garibay. Interpretable multi-head self-attention architec- ture for sarcasm detection in social media.Entropy, 23(4):394, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [3]

    Appdia: A discourse-aware transformer-based style transfer model for offensive social media conversations

    Katherine Atwell, Sabit Hassan, and Malihe Alikhani. Appdia: A discourse-aware transformer-based style transfer model for offensive social media conversations. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 6063–6074, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [4]

    University of Texas press, 1986

    Mikhail Mikha˘ ılovich Bakhtin.Speech genres and other late essays. University of Texas press, 1986

    work page 1986

  6. [5]

    What is manipulation.Manipulation: Theory and practice, 50:72, 2014

    Anne Barnhill. What is manipulation.Manipulation: Theory and practice, 50:72, 2014. Detection of Implicit Influential Patterns in Conversations 11

    work page 2014

  7. [6]

    Boerner, Stephen Deems, Thomas R

    Timothy J. Boerner, Stephen Deems, Thomas R. Furlani, Shelley L. Knuth, and John Towns. ACCESS: Advancing Innovation: NSF’s Advanced Cyberinfrastruc- ture Coordination Ecosystem: Services & Support. InPractice and Experience in Advanced Research Computing 2023: Computing for the Common Good, PEARC ’23, pages 173–176. Association for Computing Machinery, S...

    work page 2023

  8. [7]

    Language models are few-shot learners.Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems, 33:1877–1901, 2020

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Pra- fulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners.Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems, 33:1877–1901, 2020

    1901

Show all 27 references
  1. [8]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizingreasoningcapabilityinllmsviareinforcementlearning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    DeepSeek-AI,DayaGuo,DejianYang,HaoweiZhang,JunxiaoSong,RuoyuZhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizingreasoningcapabilityinllmsviareinforcementlearning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Latent hatred: A benchmark for understanding implicit hate speech

    Mai ElSherief, Caleb Ziems, David Muchlinski, Vaishnavi Anupindi, Jordyn Sey- bolt, Munmun De Choudhury, and Diyi Yang. Latent hatred: A benchmark for understanding implicit hate speech. InProceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, ...

    2021

  3. [10]

    Mentalmac: Enhancing large language models for detecting mental manipulation via multi-task anti-curriculum distillation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.15255, 2025

    Yuansheng Gao, Han Bao, Tong Zhang, Bin Li, Zonghui Wang, and Wenzhi Chen. Mentalmac: Enhancing large language models for detecting mental manipulation via multi-task anti-curriculum distillation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.15255, 2025

    2025

  4. [11]

    Cosyn: Detecting implicit hate speech in online conversations using a context synergized hyperbolic network

    Sreyan Ghosh, Manan Suri, Purva Chiniya, Utkarsh Tyagi, Sonal Kumar, and Di- nesh Manocha. Cosyn: Detecting implicit hate speech in online conversations using a context synergized hyperbolic network. InProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language...

    2023

  5. [12]

    The llama 3 herd of models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024

    Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Alex Vaughan, et al. The llama 3 herd of models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [13]

    PhD thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2023

    Zhen Guo.Understanding and Combating Online Social Deception. PhD thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2023

    2023

  7. [14]

    Toxigen: A large-scale machine-generated dataset for adversarial and implicit hate speech detection

    Thomas Hartvigsen, Saadia Gabriel, Hamid Palangi, Maarten Sap, Dipankar Ray, and Ece Kamar. Toxigen: A large-scale machine-generated dataset for adversarial and implicit hate speech detection. InProceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lingui...

    2022

  8. [15]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.ICLR, 1(2):3, 2022

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, Weizhu Chen, et al. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models.ICLR, 1(2):3, 2022

    2022

  9. [16]

    Springer Texts in Statistics

    Gareth James, Daniela Witten, Trevor Hastie, Robert Tibshirani, and Jonathan Taylor.An Introduction to Statistical Learning: With Applications in Python. Springer Texts in Statistics. Springer International Publishing, 2023

    2023

  10. [17]

    Large language models are zero-shot reasoners.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:22199–22213, 2022

    Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:22199–22213, 2022

    2022

  11. [18]

    Too human and not human enough: A grounded theory analysis of mental health harms from emotional dependence on the social chatbot replika

    Linnea Laestadius, Andrea Bishop, Michael Gonzalez, Diana Illenčík, and Celeste Campos-Castillo. Too human and not human enough: A grounded theory analysis of mental health harms from emotional dependence on the social chatbot replika. New Media & Society, 26(10):5923–5941, 2024

    2024

  12. [19]

    Zero-data learning of new tasks

    Hugo Larochelle, Dumitru Erhan, and Yoshua Bengio. Zero-data learning of new tasks. InAAAI, volume 1, page 3, 2008. 12 S. Abdidizaji et al

    2008

  13. [20]

    Detecting conversational mental manipulation with intent-aware prompting

    Jiayuan Ma, Hongbin Na, Zimu Wang, Yining Hua, Yue Liu, Wei Wang, and Ling Chen. Detecting conversational mental manipulation with intent-aware prompting. InProceedings of the 31st International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 9176–9183, 2025

    2025

  14. [21]

    Dreaddit: A reddit dataset for stress analysis in social media.EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, page 97, 2019

    Elsbeth Turcan and Kathleen McKeown. Dreaddit: A reddit dataset for stress analysis in social media.EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, page 97, 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    Dai, and Quoc V

    Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M. Dai, and Quoc V. Le. Finetuned Language Models are Zero-Shot Learners. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, October 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Enhanced detection of conversational mental manipulation through advanced prompting techniques

    Ivory Yang, Xiaobo Guo, Sean Xie, and Soroush Vosoughi. Enhanced detection of conversational mental manipulation through advanced prompting techniques. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.07676, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Detexd: A benchmark dataset for del- icate text detection

    Serhii Yavnyi, Oleksii Sliusarenko, Jade Razzaghi, Olena Nahorna, Yichen Mo, Knar Hovakimyan, and Artem Chernodub. Detexd: A benchmark dataset for del- icate text detection. InThe 7th Workshop on Online Abuse and Harms (WOAH), pages 14–28, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Cybersecurity and personal privacy: Protecting yourself in the digital age.Open Access Research Journal of Science and Technology, 12(1):131– 135, 2024

    Ahmed Al Zaidy. Cybersecurity and personal privacy: Protecting yourself in the digital age.Open Access Research Journal of Science and Technology, 12(1):131– 135, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Line_1, Line_3, Line_5

    Caleb Ziems, William Held, Omar Shaikh, Jiaao Chen, Zhehao Zhang, and Diyi Yang. Can large language models transform computational social science?Com- putational Linguistics, 50(1):237–291, 2024. Appendices Appendix 1 For data augmentation, conversations must be preprocessed t...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.