Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36818687›Full record

ArticleJournal of big data2023

Investigating coordinated account creation using burst detection and network analysis.

Daniele Bellutta, Kathleen M Carley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of big data, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Daniele BelluttaCASOS & IDeaS Centers, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA USA.
Kathleen M CarleyCASOS & IDeaS Centers, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Democracies around the world face the threat of manipulation of their electorates via coordinated online influence campaigns. Researchers have responded by developing valuable methods for finding automated accounts and identifying false information, but these valiant efforts often fall into a cat-and-mouse game with perpetrators who constantly change their behavior. This has forced several researchers to go beyond the detection of individual malicious actors by instead identifying the coordinated activity that propels potent information operations. In this vein, we provide rigorous quantitative evidence for the notion that sudden increases in Twitter account creations may provide early warnings of online information operations. Analysis of fourteen months of tweets discussing the 2020 U.S. elections revealed that accounts created during bursts exhibited more similar behavior, showed more agreement on mail-in voting and mask wearing, and were more likely to be bots and share links to low-credibility sites. In concert with other techniques for detecting nefarious activity, social media platforms could temporarily limit the influence of accounts created during these bursts. Given the advantages of combining multiple anti-misinformation methods, we join others in presenting a case for the need to develop more integrable methods for countering online influence campaigns. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40537-023-00695-7.

Indexed as

ElectionsMisinformationSocial networks

Identifiers

PMID36818687
PMCPMC9913025

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.