Considerations for AI fairness for people with disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In society today, people experiencing disability can face discrimination. As artificial intelligence solutions take on increasingly important roles in decision-making and interaction, they have the potential to impact fair treatment of people with disabilities in society both positively and negatively. We describe some of the opportunities and risks across four emerging AI application areas: employment, education, public safety, and healthcare, identified in a workshop with participants experiencing a range of disabilities. In many existing situations, non-AI solutions are already discriminatory, and introducing AI runs the risk of simply perpetuating and replicating these flaws. We next discuss strategies for supporting fairness in the context of disability throughout the AI development lifecycle. AI systems should be reviewed for potential impact on the user in their broader context of use. They should offer opportunities to redress errors, and for users and those impacted to raise fairness concerns. People with disabilities should be included when sourcing data to build models, and in testing, to create a more inclusive and robust system. Finally, we offer pointers into an established body of literature on human-centered design processes and philosophies that may assist AI and ML engineers in innovating algorithms that reduce harm and ultimately enhance the lives of people with disabilities.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.087 | 0.163 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".