Exploring Deviations from the Norm: A Participatory Study of Outliers in Asylum Decision-Making [Oral Presentation}
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Refugees around the world are increasingly subject to data-driven decision-making when apply- ing for asylum. Researchers in countries such as the US, Canada and Australia are experiment- ing with machine learning algorithms to predict asylum outcomes, to mitigate judges’ bias and harmonise decision outcomes [Cameron et al.(2021)], [Chen and Eagel(2017)], [Dunn et al.(2017)]. However, there is a growing literature warning of the potential harms of automated decision-making [Zavrˇsnik(2021)], [Brown et al.(2019)]. Few of these studies have scrutinised concrete algorithmic techniques and the social values that are encoded in them, e.g. [Bechmann(2019)] and [Rieder(2017)]. Moreover, the critical reflection of algorithmic bias often comes from an academic environment and doesn’t take into account perspectives of practitioners of automated decision-making. Using a data set of over 17,000 Danish asylum decision summaries, we propose a participatory approach to scrutinising an algorithmic technique, the social values that it encodes and the lived experiences of the data subjects. We apply and study algorithms used for outlier detection in the context of Danish asylum decision-making. Our study is comprised of two parts, of which we will present preliminary results: 1. We implement three variations of commonly used unsupervised outlier detection algorithms, to answer the questions: Who are the outliers in the data set of asylum decision summaries? What effect have different choices of the analyst in the stages of implementing the algorithm, on the result? 2. Applying a participatory approach, we take the results of our quantitative analysis to the stakeholders of the Danish asylum decision-making process and ask: Who are the outliers for stakeholders of the Danish asylum decision-making process? What makes them outliers? How does the Danish asylum decision-making process account for their outliers? Outliers are a central concept in data analysis and are often defined as observations that deviate significantly from the majority of data points. Outlier detection algorithms create a model of the normal patterns in a data set and calculate an outlier score of a given data point on the basis of deviations from these patterns. It is often up to the discretion of the data analyst to either regard them as the result of measurement or data entry errors, and thus exclude them from the data set as noise, or consider them as legitimate observations. Using the domain of asylum decision-making, we show 1) How outliers are results of a balance of human judgment and calculation in the process of implementing outlier detection algorithms; and 2) How to use this algorithmic technique to engage stakeholders of the decision-making process in a discussion about cases in asylum decision-making that do not conform to the norm. We show how outlier detection algorithms are built on a philosophy of a majority, serving and reinforcing majority traits and characteristics, while minorities or outliers are rendered invisible. We identify and center the lived experiences of outliers in the Danish asylum domain together with the stakeholders of the decision-making process. Following the principle of mutual learning, we engage in collective sensemaking of our data [Holten Møller et al.(2021)], but also foster awareness in the public sector about the possibilities and limitations of using data-driven technologies in decision- making.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,048 | 0,096 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,019 | 0,019 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,014 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».