![]() These effects are interesting on two accounts. The global effects of new knowledge when combined with other cultural or religious traditions are thus unknown. The majority of those involved in such studies, by tradition, experience, and formative influences, share the same worldview about the nature of moral dilemmas or the feasibility of intended applications. It may be contended also that the critical potential of philosophical or ethical analyses is reduced by their being situated within the scientific process itself and carried out by members of the expert community, thus reducing independence of judgment. ELSI projects associated with genomic research are notable for the lack of minorities involved and for the absence of comparative analysis of data reception in different world communities. Both types of applications depend on informed communities of non-scientists (physicians, policymakers), whose members may well differ on what constitutes burden and what is benefit, depending upon professional socialization and cultural bias. Researchers claim that the new knowledge will have a positive impact on medicine and serve as a foundation for informed social policy. ![]() Manipulation, prejudice and mistrust, however, pervade non-expert accounts of current research. Leading genomics researchers view their field as developing after a sharp break with that worldwide social movement of the 20´s and more » 30´s known as eugenics and its most radical expression in the Nazi efforts to destroy life “not worth living”. ![]() Moral and legal consequences, however, diffuse rapidly and involve groups and persons with scant or no knowledge about the way scientific concepts are developed or perfected. In a globalized world, new developments affect societies not capable of technically replicating them and unaware of the very nature of the scientific process. The effects of genetic knowledge beyond the scientific community depend on processes of social construction of risks and benefits, or perils and possibilities, which are different in different communities. Finally, our novel connotation analysis across deception types provides deeper understanding of writers' perspectives and therefore reveals the intentions behind digital misinformation. Deceptive news types (disinformation, propaganda, and hoaxes), unlike deceptive strategies (falsification and misleading), are more salient, and thus easier to identify in tweets than in news reports. Disinformation is more difficult to predict than to propaganda or hoaxes. Falsification strategy is easier to identify than misleading strategy. Our experimental results demonstrate that unlike earlier work on deception detection, content combined with biased language markers, moral foundations, and connotations leads to better predictive performance of deception strategies compared to syntactic and stylistic signals (as reported in earlier work on deceptive reviews). We then incorporate these insights to build machine learning and deep learning predictive models to infer deception strategies and deceptive news types. We have curated and annotated a dataset designed for multiple natural language processing tasks, but specifically useful for disinformation detection = strategies including misleading or falsification. Our hypothesis is that we can identify disinformation by looking at the way someone speaks, in the rhetorical devices they use. While both have their merits and successes, subject matter experts are unable to keep up with the high volumes of global information and traditional natural language algorithms do not do well in identifying “why” something is disinformation or not. Current efforts rely on subject matter experts to manually identify disinformation, or on computers and traditional natural language processing algorithms to identify patterns in data to calculate the probability that something is disinformation or not. Disinformation campaigns pose severe threats to our nation’s security by misinforming decision makers and negatively influencing their actions when they are operating on limited amounts of evidence. ![]() Foreign disinformation campaigns are strategically organized, extended efforts using disinformation – false or misleading information deliberately placed by an adversary – to achieve some goal.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |