The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Headline Diagnosis: Manipulation of Content Farm Headlines
Open accessAbstract
As technology grows faster, the news spreads through social media. In order to attract more readers and acquire additional profit, some news agencies reproduce massive news in a more appealing manner. Therefore, it is essential to accurately predict whether a news article is from official news agencies. This work develops a headline classification based on Convoluted Neural Network to determine credibility of a news article. The model primarily focuses on investigating key factors from headlines. These factors include word segmentation, part-of-speech tags, and sentiment features. With integrating these features into the proposed classification model, the demonstrated evaluation achieves 93.99% for accuracy.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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 main goal of AI-driven content farms is to maximize advertising revenue through advertising systems that automatically place ads on different websites.
“The main goal of these farms is to maximize advertising revenue through advertising systems that automatically place ads on different websites (Chen et al., 2022).”
From The illusion of reality: How AI-generated images (AIGIs) are fooling social media users (2026) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2022
The Introduction (p. 1) says content farms seek to maximize revenue by spreading advertisements alongside articles. It does not describe advertising systems that automatically place ads across different websites; the paper's use of AI concerns headline classification, not how the farms operate. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredContent farms often run multiple websites and social media accounts in parallel to distribute their content more widely.
“Content farms often run multiple websites and social media accounts in parallel to distribute their content more widely.”
From The illusion of reality: How AI-generated images (AIGIs) are fooling social media users (2026) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2022
The Introduction (p. 1) says news agencies expanded onto social media and describes content-farm websites seeking popularity. It does not say content farms often operate multiple websites and social media accounts in parallel. Searches for multiple websites, social media accounts, and wider distribution found no passage addressing that practice. (LLM, conf=0.73)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- [1][1] S. Chesney, M. Liakata, M. Poesio, and M. Purver, 'Incongruent Headlines: Yet Another Way to Mislead Your Readers,' in Proc. of NLPmJ@EMNLP 2017, O. Popescu and C. Strapparava, Ed. Copenhagen, Denmark, Sep. 2017, pp. 56-61. -
- [2][2] J. N. Blom and K. R. Hansen, 'Click Bait: Forward-reference as Lure in Online News Headlines,' Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 76, pp. 87-100, Jan. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.010. - · DOI · Paper page
- [3][3] D. Jin, Z. Jin, J. T. Zhou, L. Orii, and P. Szolovits, 'Hooks in the Headline: Learning to Generate Headlines with Controlled Styles,' in Proc. of ACL 2020, July 5-10, 2020, pp. 5082-093. [Online]. Available: https://www. aclweb.org/anthology/2020.acl-main.456/. -
- [4][4] J. Ficler and Y. Goldberg, 'Controlling Linguistic Style Aspects in Neural Language Generation,' in Proc. of the StyVa., J. Brooke, T. Solorio, and M. Koppel, Ed. Copenhagen, Denmark, Sep. 2017, pp. 94-104. -
- [5][5] S.-M. Wang and L.-W. Ku, 'ANTUSD: A Large Chinese Sentiment Dictionary,' in Proc. of LREC'16, N. Calzolari, et al., Ed. Portorož, Slovenia, May 2016, pp. 2697-2702. -
- [6][6] Y. Zhang and B. Wallace, 'A Sensitivity Analysis of (and Practitioners' Guide to) Convolutional Neural Networks for Sentence Classification,' in Proc. of IJCNLP 2017, G. Kondrak and T. Watanabe, Ed. Taipei, Taiwan, Nov. 2017, pp. 253-264. -
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The illusion of reality: How AI-generated images (AIGIs) are fooling social media users
Miskolczi, M. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2025.108876 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Chen, Y.-C., Huang, P.-Y., Lin, C., Huang, Y.-T., & Chen, M. C.
- Affiliations
- University of California San Diego (US)
- University of London (GB)
- Institute of Information Science, Academia Sinica (TW)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2022
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2204.11408
- OpenAlex
- W4224926593
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- 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 › Text and Document Classification Technologies
- Keywords
- news headline classification, fake news detection, news credibility, social media news, convolutional neural networks, word segmentation, part-of-speech tagging, sentiment features
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
