Researcher profile

Maria Bielikova

Maria Bielikova contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
7topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

A Study of Fake News Reading and Annotating in Social Media Context

The online spreading of fake news is a major issue threatening entire societies. Much of this spreading is enabled by new media formats, namely social networks and online media sites. Researchers and practitioners have been trying to answer this by characterizing the fake news and devising automated methods for detecting them. The detection methods had so far only limited success, mostly due to the complexity of the news content and context and lack of properly annotated datasets. One possible way to boost the efficiency of automated misinformation detection methods, is to imitate the detection work of humans. It is also important to understand the news consumption behavior of online users. In this paper, we present an eye-tracking study, in which we let 44 lay participants to casually read through a social media feed containing posts with news articles, some of which were fake. In a second run, we asked the participants to decide on the truthfulness of these articles. We also describe a follow-up qualitative study with a similar scenario but this time with 7 expert fake news annotators. We present the description of both studies, characteristics of the resulting dataset (which we hereby publish) and several findings.

preprint2022arXiv

An Audit of Misinformation Filter Bubbles on YouTube: Bubble Bursting and Recent Behavior Changes

The negative effects of misinformation filter bubbles in adaptive systems have been known to researchers for some time. Several studies investigated, most prominently on YouTube, how fast a user can get into a misinformation filter bubble simply by selecting wrong choices from the items offered. Yet, no studies so far have investigated what it takes to burst the bubble, i.e., revert the bubble enclosure. We present a study in which pre-programmed agents (acting as YouTube users) delve into misinformation filter bubbles by watching misinformation promoting content (for various topics). Then, by watching misinformation debunking content, the agents try to burst the bubbles and reach more balanced recommendation mixes. We recorded the search results and recommendations, which the agents encountered, and analyzed them for the presence of misinformation. Our key finding is that bursting of a filter bubble is possible, albeit it manifests differently from topic to topic. Moreover, we observe that filter bubbles do not truly appear in some situations. We also draw a direct comparison with a previous study. Sadly, we did not find much improvements in misinformation occurrences, despite recent pledges by YouTube.

preprint2022arXiv

Monant Medical Misinformation Dataset: Mapping Articles to Fact-Checked Claims

False information has a significant negative influence on individuals as well as on the whole society. Especially in the current COVID-19 era, we witness an unprecedented growth of medical misinformation. To help tackle this problem with machine learning approaches, we are publishing a feature-rich dataset of approx. 317k medical news articles/blogs and 3.5k fact-checked claims. It also contains 573 manually and more than 51k automatically labelled mappings between claims and articles. Mappings consist of claim presence, i.e., whether a claim is contained in a given article, and article stance towards the claim. We provide several baselines for these two tasks and evaluate them on the manually labelled part of the dataset. The dataset enables a number of additional tasks related to medical misinformation, such as misinformation characterisation studies or studies of misinformation diffusion between sources.