SocArXiv
metadata only
Fake–Real gaps in observed spread and detectability differ between health misinformation datasets built in different ways: a comparison of CoAID and FakeHealth
Health misinformation datasets don't reach a common ground about what misinformation is. FakeHealth labels mainstream health news by expert-rated reporting quality, while CoAID compares fact-checked COVID-19 claims with material from health agencies and health information publishers. We compared mod
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Replication of the EMPAREG Diabetes Trial in Healthcare Claims#1058084
- Participant Fraud: How Imposters and Bots Undermine Health Databases.#1054284
- Association of social media-sourced blood donors with transfusion delay and donor-related irregularities: A multicentre study in Bangladesh#189380
- Replication of the AMPLIFY Anticoagulant Trial in Healthcare Claims Data#1046991
- Replication of the RECOVER-II Anticoagulant Trial in Healthcare Claims Data#1466271
Record · ID 1590818
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive