Veracity roadmap: Is big data objective, truthful and credible?

Advances in Classification Research Online

Volumn 24, Issue , 2014, Pages 4-15

  Rubin, Victoria L ^b  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Big data; Credibility; Deception detection; Natural language processing; Subjectivity; Text analytics; Veracity

Indexed keywords

DATA HANDLING; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS;

CREDIBILITY; DECEPTION DETECTION; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; SUBJECTIVITY; TEXT ANALYTICS; VERACITY;

BIG DATA;

EID: 84908368843     PISSN: 23249773     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.7152/acro.v24i1.14671     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (77)

1. Adams, Scott. (1956). Information - a national resource. American Documentation (pre-1986), 7(2), 71.
2. Attfield, Simon, & Dowell, John. (2003). Information seeking and use by newspaper journalists. Journal of documentation, 59(2), 187-204.
3. Ayshford, Emily (2012). The Data Age. McCormick Magazine. http://www.mccormick.northwestern. edu/magazine/fall-2012/data-age.html
4. Bachenko, Joan, Fitzpatrick, Eileen, & Schonwetter, Michael. (2008). Verification and implementation of language-based deception indicators in civil and criminal narratives. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics-Volume 1.
5. Ballou, Donald P, & Pazer, Harold L. (1985). Modeling data and process quality in multi-input, multi-output information systems. Management science, 31(2), 150-162.
6. Bates, Marcia (2002). After the dot-bomb: getting web information retrieval right this time. First Monday, 7(7).
7. Brien, Rita Cruise, & Helleiner, G. (1980). The political Economy of Information in a Changing International Economic Order. Internat. Organization, 34(4), 445-70.
8. Buller, David, & Burgoon, Judee (1996). Interpersonal Deception Theory. Communication Theory, 6(3),203-42.
9. Burgoon, Judee, & Buller, David. (1994). Interpersonal Deception: III. Effects of Deceit on Perceived Communication and Nonverbal Behavioral Dynamics. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18(2), 155-184.
10. Claverie-Berge, Isabelle (2012). Solutions Big Data IBM. http://www05.ibm.com/fr/events/netezzaDM_2012/ Solutions_Big_Data.pdf
11. Conrad, Jack G., Leidner, Jochen, & Schilder, Frank. (2008). Professional Credibility: Authority on the Web. Paper presented at the 2nd Workshop on Information Credibility on the Web (WICOW08), Napa, CA.
12. Crawford, Kate (2013). The Hidden Biases in Big Data. Harvard Business Review. http://blogs.hbr.org/ cs/2013/04/the_hidden_biases_in_big_data.html
13. Cronin, Blaise (2013). Editorial. Journal of the American Society for Inform. Science & Technology, 63(3), 435-6.
14. Crystal, David. (1969). What is linguistics? Edward Arnold.
15. Dasgupta, Arup (2013). Big data: The future is in analytics. Geospatial World, April.
16. Davies, Mark. (2009). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 387 million words, 1990-present. Retrieved 10 February 2009, from http://www.american corpus.org.
17. DeLone, William H, & McLean, Ephraim R. (1992). Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Information systems research, 3(1), 60-95.
18. Dervin, Brenda. (1983). An overview of sense-making research: Concepts, methods, and results to date. Paper presented at the The Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, Dallas, TX.
19. Fogg, B. J., & Tseng, Hsiang. (1999). The elements of computer credibility. Paper presented at the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: the CHI is the limit, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States.
20. Fricke, M. (2008). The knowledge pyramid: a critique of the DIKW hierarchy. Journal of Inf. Science, 35(2), 131-42.
21. Goodhue, Dale L. (1995). Understanding user evaluations of information systems. Manag. Science, 41(12), 1827-44.
22. Hall, Kathleen (2013). Data quality more important than fixating over big data, says Shell VP. Computerweekely.com. http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240186887/Data-quality-more-important-than-fixating-over-big-data-says-Shell-VP
23. Hancock, Jeffrey T, Curry, Lauren E, Goorha, Saurabh, & Woodworth, Michael. (2007). On lying and being lied to: A linguistic analysis of deception in computer-mediated communication. Discourse Processes, 45(1), 1-23.
24. Hardin, Russel. (2001). Conceptions and Explanations of Trust. In K. S. Cook (Ed.), Trust in Society (pp. 3-39). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
25. Hirst, Graeme (2007). Views of text-meaning in computational linguistics: Past, present, and future. In G. Dodig-Crnkovic & S. Stuart (Eds.), Computing, philosophy, and cognitive science: The Nexus and the Liminal. Newcastleupon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press.
26. Hjørland, Birger. (2007). Information: Objective or subjective/situational? Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 58(10), 1448-56.
27. Jarke, M. , & Vassiliou, Y. . (1997). Data warehouse quality: a review of the DWQ project. Paper presented at the Conference on Information Quality, Cambridge, MA.
28. Johnson, K. A., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2009). Enhancing Perceived Credibility of Citizen Journalism Web Sites. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(2), 332-348.
29. Juran, Joseph M. (1992). Juran on quality by design: the new steps for planning quality into goods and services: SimonandSchuster. com.
30. Knight, Shirlee-Ann, & Burn, Janice M. (2005). Developing a framework for assessing information quality on the World Wide Web. Informing Science: International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 8(5), 159-172.
31. Kuhlthau, Carol. (1993). A principle of uncertainty for information seeking. Journal of Documentation, 49(4), 339-55.
32. Larcker, David F, & Zakolyukina, Anastasia A. (2012). Detecting deceptive discussions in conference calls. Journal of Accounting Research, 50(2), 495-540.
33. Lee, Yang, Strong, Diane, Kahn, Beverly, & Wang, Richard. (2002). AIMQ: a methodology for information quality assessment. Information & Management, 40(2), 133-46.
34. Liu, Bing. (2012). Sentiment analysis and opinion mining. Synthesis Lectures on Human Lang. Tech., 5(1), 1-167.
35. Mai, Jens-Erik. (2013). The quality and qualities of information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(4), 675-688. doi: 10.1002/asi.22783
36. Manning, Christopher D, & Schütze, Hinrich. (1999). Foundations of statistical natural language processing (Vol. 999): MIT Press.
37. McQuail, D. (2010). McQuail's Mass Communication Theory: SAGE Publications.
38. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. (2009). Retrieved 10 February 2009, from www.merriam-webster.com
39. Mihalcea, Rada, & Strapparava, Carlo. (2009). The lie detector: Explorations in the automatic recognition of deceptive language. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ACL-IJCNLP 2009 Conference Short Papers.
40. Morante, Roser, & Sporleder, Caroline. (2012). Modality and negation: An introduction to the special issue. Computational linguistics, 38(2), 223-260.
41. Mosco, V., & Wasko, J. (1988). The Political Economy of Information: University of Wisconsin Press.
42. Ott, Myle, Choi, Yejin, Cardie, Claire, & Hancock, Jeffrey T. (2011). Finding deceptive opinion spam by any stretch of the imagination. arXiv preprint arXiv:1107.4557.
43. Pang, Bo, & Lee, Lillian. (2008). Opinion Mining and Sentiment Analysis. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, 2(1-2), 1-135.
44. Pennebaker, James W, Francis, Martha E, & Booth, Roger J. (2001). Linguistic inquiry and word count (LIWC): A computerized text analysis program. Mahwah (NJ), 7.
45. Read, William H. (1979). Information as a National Resource. Journal of Communication, 29(1), 172-178.
46. Rieh, Soo Young. (2010). Credibility and Cognitive Authority of Information. In B. M & M. N. Maack (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, Third Edition (pp. 1337 - 1344). New York: Taylor and Francis Group.
47. Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus. (2013). Credibility. (n.d.). http://thesaurus.com/browse/credibility
48. Rubin, Victoria L. (2006). Identifying certainty in texts. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.
49. Rubin, Victoria L. (2007). Stating with Certainty or Stating with Doubt: Intercoder Reliability Results for Manual Annotation of Epistemically Modalized Statements. Proceedings of NAACL HLT 2007, Companion Volume, 141-144.
50. Rubin, Victoria L. (2010). Epistemic modality: From uncertainty to certainty in the context of information seeking as interactions with texts. Information Processing & Management, 46(5), 533-540. doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2010.02.006
51. Rubin, Victoria L., & Conroy, Neil. (2012). Discerning truth from deception: Human judgments and automation efforts. First Monday, 17(3).
52. Rubin, Victoria L., Kando, Noriko, & Liddy, Elizabeth D. (2004). Certainty categorization model. Paper presented at the AAAI spring symposium: Exploring attitude and affect in text: Theories and applications, Stanford, CA.
53. Rubin, Victoria L., & Liddy, Elizabeth D. (2006). Assessing Credibility of Weblogs. Paper presented at the AAAI Spring Symposium: Computational Approaches to Analyzing Weblogs.
54. Rubin, Victoria L., Liddy, Elizabeth D, & Kando, Noriko. (2006). Certainty identification in texts: Categorization model and manual tagging results Computing attitude and affect in text: Theory and applications (pp. 61-76): Springer.
55. Rubin, Victoria L., & Lukoianova, Tatiana. (Forthcoming). Truth and Deception at the Rhetorical Level. The Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology.
56. Rubin, Victoria L., & Vashchilko, Tatiana. (2012). Extending Information Quality Assessment Methodology: A New Veracity/Deception Dimension and its Measures. The Proceedings of the American Society for the Information Science and Technology, 49, 1-6.
57. Rubin, Victoria L. , & Chen, Yimin (2012). Information Manipulation Classification Theory for LIS and NLP. ASIST 2012, October 28-31, 2012, Baltimore, MD, USA.
58. Saurí, Roser, & Pustejovsky, James. (2009). FactBank: a corpus annotated with event factuality. Language resources and evaluation, 43(3), 227-268.
59. Saurí, Roser, & Pustejovsky, James. (2012). Are you sure that this happened? assessing the factuality degree of events in text. Computational Linguistics, 38(2), 261-299.
60. Schroeck, Michael , Shockley, Rebecca , Smart, Janet , Romero-Morales, Dolores, & Tufano, Peter (2012). Analytics: The real-world use of big data. How innovative enterprises extract value from uncertaindata. www.stthomas.edu/gradsoftware/files/BigData_RealWorldUse.pdf
61. Severin, W.J., & Tankard, J.W. (1992). Communication theories: origins, methods, and uses in the mass media: Longman.
62. Smith, Heather (2013). Big data FAQs - a primer. biblog.arcplan.com/2012/03/big-data-faqs-a-primer/
63. Stvilia, Besiki. (2007). A model for ontology quality evaluation. First Monday, 12(12).
64. Stvilia Besiki Al-Faraj Abdullah, & Yi, Yong Jeong. (2009). Issues of cross-contextual information quality evaluation—The case of Arabic, English, & Korean Wikipedias. Libr. & Inf. Science Research, 31(4), 232-9.
65. Stvilia, Besiki, Gasser, Les, Twidale, Michael B., & Smith, Linda C. (2007). A framework for information quality assessment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(12), 1720-33.
66. Turney, P., & Littman, M.L. (2003). Measuring Praise and Criticism: Inference of Semantic Orientation from Association. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 21(4), 315-346.
67. Vrij, Aldert, Mann, Samantha, Kristen, Susanne, & Fisher, Ronald P. (2007). Cues to deception and ability to detect lies as a function of police interview styles. Law and human behavior, 31(5), 499.
68. Walker, Michael. (2013). Data Veracity - Data Science Central.pdf. Data Science Central. http://www.data sciencecentral.com/profiles/blogs/data-veracity
69. Wand, Yair, & Wang, Richard Y. (1996). Anchoring data quality dimensions in ontological foundations. Communications of the ACM, 39(11), 86-95.
70. Wang, Richard Y, & Strong, Diane M. (1996). Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(4), 5-5.
71. Wang, Richard Y. , Kon, Henry B. , & Madnick, Stuart E. . (1993). Data Quality Requirements Analysis and Modeling. The Ninth International Conference of Data Engineering, Vienna, Austria, April 1993, December (TDQM-92-03).
72. Weerkamp, Wouter, & de Rijke, Maarten. (2012). Credibility-inspired ranking for blog post retrieval. Information Retrieval, 15(3-4), 243-277.
73. Weerkamp, Wouter, & de Rijke, Maarten (2008). Credibility improves topical blog post retrieval. Proceedings of ACL08: HLT, page 923-931, Columbus, Ohio. Association for Computational Linguistics, Association for Computational Linguistics.
74. Wiebe, Janyce, Bruce, Rebecca, Bell, Matthew, Martin, Melanie, & Wilson, Theresa. (2001). A corpus study of evaluative and speculative language. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Second SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue-Volume 16.
75. Yoon, Kyunghye, & Nilan, Michael S. (1999). Toward a reconceptualization of information seeking research: focus on the exchange of meaning. Information Processing & Management, 35(6), 871-890.
76. Zhou, Lina, Burgoon, Judee K., Nunamaker, Jay F., & Twitchell, Doug. (2004). Automating Linguistics-Based Cues for Detecting Deception in Text-Based Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communications. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13(1), 81-106.
77. Zmud, Robert W. (1978). An empirical investigation of the dimensionality of the concept of information *. Decision Sciences, 9(2), 187-195.