Cited by 381Misinformation and Its ImpactsSpam and Phishing DetectionHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

Separating Facts from Fiction: Linguistic Models to Classify Suspicious and Trusted News Posts on Twitter

Open access
Volkova, Svitlana, Shaffer, Kyle, Jang, Jin Yea, Hodas, Nathan·2017·Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers)

Abstract

Pew research polls report 62 percent of U.S. adults get news on social media (Gottfried and Shearer, 2016). In a December poll, 64 percent of U.S. adults said that “made-up news” has caused a “great deal of confusion” about the facts of current events (Barthel et al., 2016). Fabricated stories in social media, ranging from deliberate propaganda to hoaxes and satire, contributes to this confusion in addition to having serious effects on global stability. In this work we build predictive models to classify 130 thousand news posts as suspicious or verified, and predict four sub-types of suspicious news – satire, hoaxes, clickbait and propaganda. We show that neural network models trained on tweet content and social network interactions outperform lexical models. Unlike previous work on deception detection, we find that adding syntax and grammar features to our models does not improve performance. Incorporating linguistic features improves classification results, however, social interaction features are most informative for finer-grained separation between four types of suspicious news posts.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/p17-2102

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Volkova, S., Shaffer, K., Jang, J. Y., & Hodas, N.
Affiliations
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers)
Published
2017
Pages
647-653
ISSN
0736-587X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2740560510
Cited by
381
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 69 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 50 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 4
FWCI
121.13
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Energy
  • Battelle
  • Laboratory Directed Research and Development
  • Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Keywords
fake news, hoaxes, satire, clickbait, propaganda, Twitter, linguistic features, social network interactions, deception detection, news verification, neural network classifier

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