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
Algorithmically-mediated content is both a product and producer of dominant social narratives, and it has the potential to impact users' beliefs and behaviors. We present two studies on the content and impact of gender and racial representation in image search results for common occupations. In Study 1, we compare 2020 workforce gender and racial composition to that reflected in image search. We find evidence of underrepresentation on both dimensions: women are underrepresented in search at a rate of 42% women for a field with 50% women; people of color are underrepresented with 16% in search compared to an occupation with 22% people of color (the latter being proportional to the U.S. workforce). We also compare our gender representation data with that collected in 2015 by Kay et al., finding little improvement in the last half-decade. In Study 2, we study people's impressions of occupations and sense of belonging in a given field when shown search results with different proportions of women and people of color. We find that both axes of representation as well as people's own racial and gender identities impact their experience of image search results. We conclude by emphasizing the need for designers and auditors of algorithms to consider the disparate impacts of algorithmic content on users of marginalized identities.
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