mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Analysis of child development facts and myths using text mining techniques and classification models

arXiv 2408.13091 ↗First posted 23 Aug 2024cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The rapid dissemination of misinformation on the internet complicates the decision-making process for individuals seeking reliable information, particularly parents researching child development topics. This misinformation can lead to adverse consequences, such as inappropriate treatment of children based on myths. While previous research has utilized text-mining techniques to predict child abuse cases, there has been a gap in the analysis of child development myths and facts. This study addresses this gap by applying text mining techniques and classification models to distinguish between myths and facts about child development, leveraging newly gathered data from publicly available websites. The research methodology involved several stages. First, text mining techniques were employed to pre-process the data, ensuring enhanced accuracy. Subsequently, the structured data was analysed using six robust Machine Learning (ML) classifiers and one Deep Learning (DL) model, with two feature extraction techniques applied to assess their performance across three different training-testing splits. To ensure the reliability of the results, cross-validation was performed using both k-fold and leave-one-out methods. Among the classification models tested, Logistic Regression (LR) demonstrated the highest accuracy, achieving a 90% accuracy with the Bag-of-Words (BoW) feature extraction technique. LR stands out for its exceptional speed and efficiency, maintaining low testing time per statement (0.97 microseconds). These findings suggest that LR, when combined with BoW, is effective in accurately classifying child development information, thus providing a valuable tool for combating misinformation and assisting parents in making informed decisions.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 66 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Aug 2024.

Builds on

11 of 66 references.

References · 11

  1. 2017Fake News Detection on Social Media: A Data Mining Perspectivecited by 334
  2. 2017Detection and Resolution of Rumours in Social Media: A Surveycited by 103
  3. 2023The science of fake newscited by 94
  4. 2020CoAID: COVID-19 Healthcare Misinformation Datasetcited by 83
  5. 2018A Survey of Fake News: Fundamental Theories, Detection Methods, and Opportunitiescited by 28
  6. 2022Assessing the impact of contextual information in hate speech detectioncited by 10
  7. 2018The Web of False Information: Rumors, Fake News, Hoaxes, Clickbait, and Various Other Shenaniganscited by 8
  8. 2024Detection of Machine-Generated Text: Literature Surveycited by 7
  9. 2015Towards Detecting Rumours in Social Mediacited by 6
  10. 2021Misinformation, Believability, and Vaccine Acceptance Over 40 Countries: Takeaways From the Initial Phase of The COVID-19 Infodemiccited by 4
  11. 2021Detection of fake news on CoViD-19 on Web Search Enginescited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.