Bias and Controversy in Evaluation Systems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluation is prevalent in real life. With the advent of Web 2.0, online evaluation has become an important feature in many applications that involve information (e.g., video, photo, and audio) sharing and social networking (e.g., blogging). In these evaluation settings, a set of reviewers assign scores to a set of objects. As part of the evaluation analysis, we want to obtain fair reviews for all the given objects. However, the reality is that reviewers may deviate in their scores assigned to the same object, due to the potential "bias" of reviewers or "controversy" of objects. The statistical approach of averaging deviations to determine bias and controversy assumes that all reviewers and objects should be given equal weight. In this paper, we look beyond this assumption and propose an approach based on the following observations: 1) evaluation is "subjective," as reviewers and objects have varying bias and controversy, respectively, and 2) bias and controversy are mutually dependent. These observations underlie our proposed reinforcement-based model to determine bias and controversy simultaneously. Our approach also quantifies "evidence," which reveals the degree of confidence with which bias and controversy have been derived. This model is shown to be effective by experiments on real-life and synthetic data sets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it