Search results

This paper aims to report a QA system that can answer how‐type questions based on confirmed knowledge acquired from mails, posted to a mailing list. It aims to propose a method of detecting incorrect information in mails posted to a mailing list (ML) by using mails that ML participants submitted for correcting incorrect information in previous mails.

The paper discusses a problem of acquiring knowledge from natural language documents, then proposes a method to give these mails three kinds of confirmation labels, positive, negative, and other, depending on their credibility.

The paper shows a QA system based on the confirmed knowledge. It finds mail questions that are similar to the user's question and gives answers and their confirmation labels to the user. By using the confirmation labels, the user can easily choose the information that can solve his or her problem.

The study describes a method of detecting incorrect information in mails posted to a mailing list and acquiring confirmed knowledge from them.

This study aims to examine the relationship between various types of literacy on one hand and identification of misinformation and dissemination of such information on the other, in search for better countermeasures against misinformation.

Based on data from a large-scale survey, models are constructed and analyzed to assess the relationships of literacy with both the identification of inaccuracies and dissemination behavior.

Regarding the identification of misinformation, individuals with high critical thinking attitudes (subjective literacy) are less likely to recognize misinformation, while other objective literacies do not have a significant relationship. Regarding dissemination behavior, individuals with high information literacy, media literacy and critical thinking scores tend not to disseminate misinformation, whereas those with high critical thinking attitudes are more likely to disseminate such information.

First, it quantitatively elucidates the relationships various literacies have with the accuracy judgment and dissemination behavior of misinformation. This highlights the effectiveness of objective indicators of literacies and the need for caution regarding subjective literacy – i.e. self-confidence in their own literacy. Second, it provides a cross-disciplinary analysis of the relationships, covering not only oft-studied politics and health care but also various other fields, thereby identifying comprehensive literacy strategies against misinformation. Third, it addresses differences in dissemination methods and offers insights into more practical countermeasures.