An Image of Society
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.004 |
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".