The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Rumors detection in Chinese via crowd responses
Abstract
In recent years, microblogging platforms have become good places to spread various spams, making the problem of gauging information credibility on social networks receive considerable attention especially under an emergency situation. Unlike previous studies on detecting rumors using tweets' inherent attributes generally, in this work, we shift the premise and focus on identifying event rumors on Weibo by extracting features from crowd responses that are texts of retweets (reposting tweets) and comments under a certain social event. Firstly the paper proposes a method of collecting theme data, including a sample set of tweets which have been confirmed to be false rumors based on information from the official rumor-busting service provided by Weibo. Secondly clustering analysis of tweets are made to examine the text features extracted from retweets and comments, and a classifier is trained based on observed feature distribution to automatically judge rumors from a mixed set of valid news and false information. The experiments show that the new features we propose are indeed effective in the classification, and especially some stop words and punctuations which are treated as noises in previous works can play an important role in rumor detection. To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first to detect rumors in Chinese via crowd responses under an emergency situation.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Recent publications in the research literature have used definitions of rumours that differ from one another.”
From Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media: A Survey (2019) · cites this paper as Cai et al. 2014
Citations
Cites
Automatic detection of rumor on Sina Weibo
Yang, F., Liu, Y., Yu, X., & Yang, M. (2012) · Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD Workshop on Mining Data Semantics · doi:10.1145/2350190.2350203 · Cited by 680
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- han, 2006, Data Mining Concepts and Techniques
- 10.1023/A:1009982220290 · DOI
- 10.1145/1961189.1961199 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/BF02289588 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-642-37401-2_14 · DOI
- vieweg, 2010, Microblogged contributions to the emergency arena: Discovery, interpretation and implications, Computer Supported Collaborative Work, 515
- 10.1145/1964858.1964869 · DOI · Paper page
- cortes, 1995, Support-vector Networks Machine Learning, 20, 273
- wang, 2010, Don't follow me: Spam detection in twitter, Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Security and Cryptography (SECRYPT), 1
- qazvinian, 2011, Rumor has it: Identifying misinformation in microblogs, Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 1589
- 10.1086/220916 · DOI
- 10.1145/1963405.1963500 · DOI · Paper page
- ratkiewicz, 2011, Detecting and tracking political abuse in social media, ICWSM
Cited by
Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media: A Survey
Zubiaga, A., Aker, A., Bontcheva, K., Liakata, M., & Procter, R. (2019) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3161603 · Cited by 862
“For example, some recent work has mis-defined a rumour as a piece of information that is deemed false (e.g. [Cai et al. 2014; Liang et al. 2015]), while the majority of the literature defines rumours instead as “unverified and instrumentally relevant information statements in circulation” [Di-Fonzo…”
BackgroundExploiting Context for Rumour Detection in Social Media
Zubiaga, A., Liakata, M., & Procter, R. (2017) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-67217-5_8 · Cited by 350
Metadata
- Authors
- Cai, G., Wu, H., & Lv, R.
- Affiliations
- Guilin University of Electronic Technology (CN)
- ORCID
- Venue
- 2014 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM 2014)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2014-08
- Pages
- 912-917
- OpenAlex
- W4251751348
- Cited by
- 47
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2
- FWCI
- 11.22
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
- Keywords
- rumor detection, Chinese language, retweets, Weibo, microblogging, information credibility, emergency situations, stop words, text feature extraction, tweet clustering
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