2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.jocs.2015.11.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Sifting robotic from organic text: A natural language approach for detecting automation on Twitter

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
61
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
3
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 81 publications
(63 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
1
61
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The present study did not distinguish between human accounts and bots because the mechanisms for doing so are still in development 19. Findings described herein could reflect, in part, sentiments of automated accounts.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 72%
“…The present study did not distinguish between human accounts and bots because the mechanisms for doing so are still in development 19. Findings described herein could reflect, in part, sentiments of automated accounts.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 72%
“…To allow for bot detection at the user level, all these methods still require the analysis of some historical user data, either by indirect data collection [10,11,13,57], or, like in the case of BotOrNot [15], by interrogating the Twitter API (which imposes strict rate limits, making it impossible to do large-scale bot detection). To the best of our knowledge, no tweet-based detection system existed prior to this work.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The research presented here is one such example. Other examples include the classification system proposed by Chu et al [7,8], the crowd-sourcing detection framework by Wang et al [34], the NLP-based detection methods by Clark et al [9], and the BotOrNot classifier [11].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%