Genus och representation : studier av social bias i språkteknologi
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Natural Language Processing (NLP) technologies are a part of our every day realities. They come in forms we can easily see as ‘language technologies’ (auto-correct, translation services, search results) as well as those that fly under our radar (social media algorithms, 'suggested reading' recommendations on news sites, spam filters). NLP fuels many other tools under the Artificial Intelligence umbrella – such as algorithms approving for loan applications – which can have major material effects on our lives. As large language models like ChatGPT have become popularized, we are also increasingly exposed to machine-generated texts. Machine Learning (ML) methods, which most modern NLP tools rely on, replicate patterns in their training data. Typically, these language data are generated by humans, and contain both overt and underlying patterns that we consider socially undesirable, comprising stereotypes and other reflections of human prejudice. Such patterns (often termed 'bias') are picked up and repeated, or even made more extreme, by ML systems. Thus, NLP technologies become a part of the linguistic landscapes in which we humans transmit stereotypes and act on our prejudices. They may participate in this transmission by, for example, translating nurses as women (and doctors as men) or systematically preferring to suggest promoting men over women. These technologies are tools in the construction of power asymmetries not only through the reinforcement of hegemony, but also through the distribution of material resources when they are included in decision-making processes such as screening job applications. This thesis explores gendered biases, trans and nonbinary inclusion, and queer representation within NLP through a feminist and intersectional lens. Three key areas are investigated: the ways in which “gender” is theorized and operationalized by researchers investigating gender bias in NLP; gendered associations within datasets used for training language technologies; and the representation of queer (particularly trans and nonbinary) identities in the output of both low-level NLP models and large language models (LLMs). The findings indicate that nonbinary people/genders are erased by both bias in NLP tools/datasets, and by research/ers attempting to address gender biases. Men and women are also held to cisheteronormative standards (and stereotypes), which is particularly problematic when considering the intersection of gender and sexuality. Although it is possible to mitigate some of these issues in particular circumstances, such as addressing erasure by adding more examples of nonbinary language to training data, the complex nature of the socio-technical landscape which NLP technologies are a part of means that simple fixes may not always be sufficient. Additionally, it is important that ways of measuring and mitigating 'bias' remain flexible, as our understandings of social categories, stereotypes and other undesirable norms, and 'bias' itself will shift across contexts such as time and linguistic setting.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,045 | 0,001 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».