MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312761866 · doi:10.1109/cw55638.2022.00056

Biases, Fairness, and Implications of Using AI in Social Media Data Mining

2022· article· en· W4312761866 on OpenAlexaff
Fahim Anzum, Ashratuz Zavin Asha, Marina L. Gavrilova

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEthics and Social Impacts of AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSocial mediaKey (lock)Data scienceInformation privacyInternet privacyComputer securityWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Online social media (OSM) has become an integral part of an individual’s daily life. The extensive computational power and decision-making ability of artificial intelligence (AI) and the proliferation of user-generated data on OSM have made the opinion one of the key emerging research areas. However, the ease of accessing, manipulating, and mining such user-generated data raises concerns about privacy and security, data and algorithmic biases and fairness. Nevertheless, their personal and societal implications are barely addressed. In this paper, we discuss the limitations, fairness, and biases introduced in data mining and the AI model development. Moreover, we describe the possible implications of using AI systems on users’ privacy and address future research directions to mitigate potential biases.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.459
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.357
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.121 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEthics and Social Impacts of AIFrench-language works237,207