Dror K. Markus

Dror K. Markus, Effi Levi, Tamir Sheafer et al.

Media Storms, dramatic outbursts of attention to a story, are central components of media dynamics and the attention landscape. Despite their significance, there has been little systematic and empirical research on this concept due to issues of measurement and operationalization. We introduce an iterative human-in-the-loop method to identify media storms in a large-scale corpus of news articles. The text is first transformed into signals of dispersion based on several textual characteristics. In each iteration, we apply unsupervised anomaly detection to these signals; each anomaly is then validated by an expert to confirm the presence of a storm, and those results are then used to tune the anomaly detection in the next iteration. We demonstrate the applicability of this method in two scenarios: first, supplementing an initial list of media storms within a specific time frame; and second, detecting media storms in new time periods. We make available a media storm dataset compiled using both scenarios. Both the method and dataset offer the basis for comprehensive empirical research into the concept of media storms, including characterizing them and predicting their outbursts and durations, in mainstream media or social media platforms.

Dror Kris Markus, Fabrizio Gilardi, Daria Stetsenko

As artificial intelligence (AI) systems become deeply embedded in everyday life, calls to align AI development with ethical and societal values have intensified. Interdisciplinary collaboration is often championed as a key pathway for fostering such engagement. Yet it remains unclear whether interdisciplinary research teams are actually leading this shift in practice. This study analyzes over 100,000 AI-related papers published on ArXiv between 2014 and 2024 to examine how ethical values and societal concerns are integrated into technical AI research. We develop a classifier to identify societal content and measure the extent to which research papers express these considerations. We find a striking shift: while interdisciplinary teams remain more likely to produce societally-oriented research, computer science-only teams now account for a growing share of the field's overall societal output. These teams are increasingly integrating societal concerns into their papers and tackling a wide range of domains - from fairness and safety to healthcare and misinformation. These findings challenge common assumptions about the drivers of societal AI and raise important questions. First, what are the implications for emerging understandings of AI safety and governance if most societally-oriented research is being undertaken by exclusively technical teams? Second, for scholars in the social sciences and humanities: in a technical field increasingly responsive to societal demands, what distinctive perspectives can we still offer to help shape the future of AI?