--- language: - en license: cc-by-4.0 task_categories: - text-classification tags: - misinformation - llm-evaluation - pca - web-text size_categories: - 100K * **Inter-Model Agreement:** Most pairwise model correlations fall in the weak-to-moderate range (r_s = 0.3 - 0.7), highlighting the diversity in model architectures, training data, and alignment strategies. * **PC1 Alignment:** As expected, the primary principal component (`pc1`) displays strong, consistent correlations with the individual classifier scores, confirming that it successfully captures the shared consensus axis of misinformation severity. ## ⚠️ Limitations & Considerations 1. **Closed-Book Evaluation:** Annotations were generated without Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), external web access, or automated fact-checking tools. Assessments are strictly bounded by each model's parametric knowledge. 2. **Heuristic Screening vs. Ground Truth:** Ratings reflect LLM perception and heuristic scoring rather than definitive, human-verified ground-truth fact checking. Scores should not be treated as absolute determinations of objective truth. 3. **Quality vs. Accuracy:** A low score indicates high *factual accuracy*, not necessarily high content quality. Low-value, repetitive, or nonsensical text (e.g., SEO keyword lists or boilerplate text) may receive a score of `1` provided they contain no false claims. 4. **Context Truncation:** Snippets are capped at 2,000 characters. Cut-off arguments or incomplete contexts may occasionally skew model scoring. 5. **Domain & Temporal Bias:** The source corpus predominantly reflects web discourse typical of the 2010s, introducing specific language patterns, styles, and topic distributions. 6. **Model Heterogeneity:** Inter-annotator agreement varies across candidate LLMs due to architectural differences, alignment strategies, and parameter scales. ## 📜 License Distributed under the [Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) license.