Cited by 199Spam and Phishing DetectionMisinformation and Its ImpactsHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

A generic statistical approach for spam detection in Online Social Networks

Ahmed, Faraz, Abulaish, Muhammad·2013·Computer Communications

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.comcom.2013.04.004

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The established works benchmarked in Section 4 largely failed to detect the new wave of social spambots, with the notable exception of the unsupervised approach proposed in [2].

    “As shown in Table 7, the established works benchmarked in Section 4 largely failed to detect the new wave of social spambots, one notable exception being the unsupervised approach proposed in [2].”
  • The approach of Ahmed et al. [2] failed to identify 2 distinct clusters, since accounts of both test sets were assigned to a single cluster.

    “However, the approach failed to identify 2 distinct clusters, since accounts of both our test-sets were assigned to a single cluster.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 33 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ahmed, F., & Abulaish, M.
Affiliations
King Saud University (SA)
Corresponding author
Abulaish, Muhammad
Venue
Computer Communications
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-06
Volume
36
Issue
10-11
Pages
1120-1129
ISSN
0140-3664 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2090182207
Cited by
199
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1
FWCI
19.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Computer Communications (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Keywords
spam detection, social networking sites, statistical features, Facebook, Twitter, naive Bayes, J48 decision tree, JRip, spam campaigns

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review