Automated fact-checking is often presented as an epistemic tool that fact-checkers, social media consumers, and other stakeholders can use to fight misinformation. Nevertheless, few papers thoroughly discuss how. We document this by analysing 100 highly-cited papers, and annotating epistemic elements related to intended use, i.e., means, ends, and stakeholders. We find that narratives leaving out some of these aspects are common, that many papers propose inconsistent means and ends, and that the feasibility of suggested strategies rarely has empirical backing. We argue that this vagueness actively hinders the technology from reaching its goals, as it encourages overclaiming, limits criticism, and prevents stakeholder feedback. Accordingly, we provide several recommendations for thinking and writing about the use of fact-checking artefacts.

翻译：自动化事实核查常被描述为一种认知工具，可供核查人员、社交媒体用户及其他利益相关者用于应对虚假信息。然而，很少有论文深入探讨其具体使用方式。我们通过分析100篇高被引论文，并标注与预期用途相关的认知要素（即手段、目的及利益相关者），系统梳理了这一现状。研究发现，遗漏部分要素的叙述模式普遍存在；许多论文提出的手段与目标存在逻辑矛盾；且所建议策略的可行性鲜有实证支撑。我们认为，这种模糊性通过助长过度宣称、限制批判性讨论、阻碍利益相关者反馈，实质上阻碍了技术目标的实现。据此，我们围绕事实核查工具使用方式的思考与论述提出了若干建议。