Source author record

Maria Glenski

Maria Glenski appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

7works
6topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

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

Published work

7 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Adjusting for Confounders with Text: Challenges and an Empirical Evaluation Framework for Causal Inference

Causal inference studies using textual social media data can provide actionable insights on human behavior. Making accurate causal inferences with text requires controlling for confounding which could otherwise impart bias. Recently, many different methods for adjusting for confounders have been proposed, and we show that these existing methods disagree with one another on two datasets inspired by previous social media studies. Evaluating causal methods is challenging, as ground truth counterfactuals are almost never available. Presently, no empirical evaluation framework for causal methods using text exists, and as such, practitioners must select their methods without guidance. We contribute the first such framework, which consists of five tasks drawn from real world studies. Our framework enables the evaluation of any casual inference method using text. Across 648 experiments and two datasets, we evaluate every commonly used causal inference method and identify their strengths and weaknesses to inform social media researchers seeking to use such methods, and guide future improvements. We make all tasks, data, and models public to inform applications and encourage additional research.

preprint2022arXiv

EXPERT: Public Benchmarks for Dynamic Heterogeneous Academic Graphs

Machine learning models that learn from dynamic graphs face nontrivial challenges in learning and inference as both nodes and edges change over time. The existing large-scale graph benchmark datasets that are widely used by the community primarily focus on homogeneous node and edge attributes and are static. In this work, we present a variety of large scale, dynamic heterogeneous academic graphs to test the effectiveness of models developed for multi-step graph forecasting tasks. Our novel datasets cover both context and content information extracted from scientific publications across two communities: Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Nuclear Nonproliferation (NN). In addition, we propose a systematic approach to improve the existing evaluation procedures used in the graph forecasting models.

preprint2022arXiv

Political Bias and Factualness in News Sharing across more than 100,000 Online Communities

As civil discourse increasingly takes place online, misinformation and the polarization of news shared in online communities have become ever more relevant concerns with real world harms across our society. Studying online news sharing at scale is challenging due to the massive volume of content which is shared by millions of users across thousands of communities. Therefore, existing research has largely focused on specific communities or specific interventions, such as bans. However, understanding the prevalence and spread of misinformation and polarization more broadly, across thousands of online communities, is critical for the development of governance strategies, interventions, and community design. Here, we conduct the largest study of news sharing on reddit to date, analyzing more than 550 million links spanning 4 years. We use non-partisan news source ratings from Media Bias/Fact Check to annotate links to news sources with their political bias and factualness. We find that, compared to left-leaning communities, right-leaning communities have 105% more variance in the political bias of their news sources, and more links to relatively-more biased sources, on average. We observe that reddit users' voting and re-sharing behaviors generally decrease the visibility of extremely biased and low factual content, which receives 20% fewer upvotes and 30% fewer exposures from crossposts than more neutral or more factual content. This suggests that reddit is more resilient to low factual content than Twitter. We show that extremely biased and low factual content is very concentrated, with 99% of such content being shared in only 0.5% of communities, giving credence to the recent strategy of community-wide bans and quarantines.

preprint2021arXiv

Behavior Change in Response to Subreddit Bans and External Events

As more people flock to social media to connect with others and form virtual communities, it is important to research how members of these groups interact to understand human behavior on the Web. In response to an increase in hate speech, harassment and other antisocial behaviors, many social media companies have implemented different content and user moderation policies. On Reddit, for example, communities, i.e, subreddits, are occasionally banned for violating these policies. We study the effect of these regulatory actions as well as when a community experiences a significant external event like a political election or a market crash. Overall, we find that most subreddit bans prompt a small, but statistically significant, number of active users to leave the platform; the effect of external events varies with the type of event. We conclude with a discussion on the effectiveness of the bans and wider implications for the online content moderation.

preprint2020arXiv

CrossCheck: Rapid, Reproducible, and Interpretable Model Evaluation

Evaluation beyond aggregate performance metrics, e.g. F1-score, is crucial to both establish an appropriate level of trust in machine learning models and identify future model improvements. In this paper we demonstrate CrossCheck, an interactive visualization tool for rapid crossmodel comparison and reproducible error analysis. We describe the tool and discuss design and implementation details. We then present three use cases (named entity recognition, reading comprehension, and clickbait detection) that show the benefits of using the tool for model evaluation. CrossCheck allows data scientists to make informed decisions to choose between multiple models, identify when the models are correct and for which examples, investigate whether the models are making the same mistakes as humans, evaluate models' generalizability and highlight models' limitations, strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, CrossCheck is implemented as a Jupyter widget, which allows rapid and convenient integration into data scientists' model development workflows.

preprint2016arXiv

Rating Effects on Social News Posts and Comments

At a time when information seekers first turn to digital sources for news and opinion, it is critical that we understand the role that social media plays in human behavior. This is especially true when information consumers also act as information producers and editors through their online activity. In order to better understand the effects that editorial ratings have on online human behavior, we report the results of a two large-scale in-vivo experiments in social media. We find that small, random rating manipulations on social media posts and comments created significant changes in downstream ratings resulting in significantly different final outcomes. We found positive herding effects for positive treatments on posts, increasing the final rating by 11.02% on average, but not for positive treatments on comments. Contrary to the results of related work, we found negative herding effects for negative treatments on posts and comments, decreasing the final ratings on average, of posts by 5.15% and of comments by 37.4%. Compared to the control group, the probability of reaching a high rating (>=2000) for posts is increased by 24.6% when posts receive the positive treatment and for comments is decreased by 46.6% when comments receive the negative treatment.

preprint2015arXiv

Random Voting Effects in Social-Digital Spaces: A case study of Reddit Post Submissions

At a time when information seekers first turn to digital sources for news and opinion, it is critical that we understand the role that social media plays in human behavior. This is especially true when information consumers also act as information producers and editors by their online activity. In order to better understand the effects that editorial ratings have on online human behavior, we report the results of a large-scale in-vivo experiment in social media. We find that small, random rating manipulations on social media submissions created significant changes in downstream ratings resulting in significantly different final outcomes. Positive treatment resulted in a positive effect that increased the final rating by 11.02% on average. Compared to the control group, positive treatment also increased the probability of reaching a high rating (>=2000) by 24.6%. Contrary to the results of related work we also find that negative treatment resulted in a negative effect that decreased the final rating by 5.15% on average.