arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2402.12431cs.CL
收藏

理解科学发现报道中的细粒度失真

Understanding Fine-grained Distortions in Reports of Scientific Findings

University of Stuttgart(斯图加特大学);University of Copenhagen(哥本哈根大学);University of Bamberg(班贝格大学)

Amelie Wührl, Dustin Wright, Roman Klinger, Isabelle Augenstein

AI总结:

本文通过标注1600对学术发现与新闻/推文报道,围绕因果性、确定性、概括性和耸动性建立自动检测基线,揭示科学发现被报道时常发生细微失真且推文失真更频繁,并证明微调模型优于少样本大语言模型提示。

摘要:

失真的科学传播会危害个人与社会,因为它可能导致不健康的行为改变,并降低对科学机构的信任。鉴于近年来科学传播的数量迅速增长,细致地理解科学出版物中的发现如何被报道给公众,以及自动检测与原始研究相比的失真方法,变得至关重要。此前的工作只关注失真的个别方面,或使用未配对的数据。在这项工作中,我们为解决这一问题做出了三项基础性贡献:(1)标注了1,600个来自学术论文的科学发现实例,并将其与新闻文章和推文中报道的相应发现配对,针对四个特征进行标注:因果性、确定性、概括性和耸动性;(2)为自动检测这些特征建立了基线;(3)分析了这些特征变化在人工标注数据和大规模未标注数据中的普遍性。我们的结果表明,科学发现在被报道时经常发生细微的失真。推文比科学新闻报告更容易扭曲发现。自动检测细粒度失真是一项具有挑战性的任务。在我们的实验中,经过微调的特定任务模型始终优于少样本大语言模型提示。

英文摘要:

Distorted science communication harms individuals and society as it can lead to unhealthy behavior change and decrease trust in scientific institutions. Given the rapidly increasing volume of science communication in recent years, a fine-grained understanding of how findings from scientific publications are reported to the general public, and methods to detect distortions from the original work automatically, are crucial. Prior work focused on individual aspects of distortions or worked with unpaired data. In this work, we make three foundational contributions towards addressing this problem: (1) annotating 1,600 instances of scientific findings from academic papers paired with corresponding findings as reported in news articles and tweets wrt. four characteristics: causality, certainty, generality and sensationalism; (2) establishing baselines for automatically detecting these characteristics; and (3) analyzing the prevalence of changes in these characteristics in both human-annotated and large-scale unlabeled data. Our results show that scientific findings frequently undergo subtle distortions when reported. Tweets distort findings more often than science news reports. Detecting fine-grained distortions automatically poses a challenging task. In our experiments, fine-tuned task-specific models consistently outperform few-shot LLM prompting.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑